If paedobaptism were taught...

[MennoSota]

Excellent advise!!! I wonder why you never do that?


You like to make big, bold, new, dogmatic statements about what the Bible states.... and then PROVE for all of us, clearly and undeniably PROVE, right there in black and white.... that the Bible says no such thing. You do this with every one of your Baptist Traditions you parrot here. Shooting yourself in the foot.... proving yourself wrong..... over and over and over and over again. In thread after thread. Why do you do that? It's not a good apologeticsl practice.


As you just PROVED for us all, none of those verses state...

+ "FIRST one must prove they are not an infant, not a "paeod", not a child, not too young, not yet attained the age of X." (Anti-Paedobaptism Tradition)

+ "FIRST one must prove that they are among the Elect and/or that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior." (Credobaptism Tradition)

+ "FIRST in chronological time one must prove they have adequately repented of their sins before the prohibition to Baptize is lifted." (Rpentance Baptism Tradition)

+ "Every cell of the recipient's body must be fully immersed in and under water or it's an invalid Baptism" (Immersion Only Baptism Tradition)

And while you are at it, where do any of these state, "Thou canst do no thing that is not clearly illustrated as done in the Bible and must do all things just as clearly was done in examples found in the Bible" (you know, why you are posting on the internet, why you use Gentiles to adminsiter Baptism in a plastic tank behind a curtain and distribute Communion to women and kids with little cut up pieces of white bread and little plastic cups of grape juice).


YES, you have repeatedly provided texts of verses! Even quoted them verbatim! Doing all our work for us by PROVING - undeniably, right there in black and white - you are wrong. The Bible NEVER says what you insist it does regarding Baptism. Why do you feel this compulsion to prove that, so clearly, so obviously, so persistently???? I used to think you just didn't bother reading what you yourself post, now I'm must confused by your persistent, constant shooting yourself in the foot. Could it be you just so disrespect Scripture, regard what it says as just moot or even wrong? Well..... you do this, you prove yourself wrong and save us the trouble.

Flaming and off-topic.
Please try again.

 

[NewCreation435]

[MENTION=59]jsimms435[/MENTION]





Okay. So you too reject this Baptist Tradition (the topic of this thread). You could simply state that and be done with this thread. You could join several of us and TRY to communicate that to MennoSota and friends, but good luck (LOL)








A different Anabaptist/Baptist Tradition and dogma..... we could pursue that in a different thread if you so desire. But you are "on record" rejecting the Anabaptist/Baptist Tradition/Dogma of Anti-Paedobaptism and supporting the historic position that no mandate specifically regarding AGE is stated in Scripture. As I noted, you are among many (most, in my experience) Baptists who reject the Anabaptist Tradition on this point.








Off topic, but quickly....


1. We simply do not know if everyone baptized in the examples found in the Bible FIRST (in chronological order) repented BEFORE being Baptized. We simply do not know that. COULD be.... might not be. Honesty maters. Theology should not be grounded in something we simply don't know to be true. Personally, I'm rather uncomfortable basing new dogma on what is perceived as usually DONE (see next point). Teachings should normally be based on teaching.


2. As I mention, the rubric "We MUST do what is exampled in the Bible and are FORBIDDEN to do what is not" is critical to all these Anabaptist Traditions. Since you too make it the foundation of your apologetic, it needs to be examined. I'd begin by seeing if YOU accept and apply your OWN rubric? Do YOU forbid any practice that is not clearly exampled in the Bible? Do YOU refuse to do anything that is not exampled in the Bible? Does your church? I'd begin there. Because if you reject your own rubic and do not apply it (perhaps.... EVER) then since you reject your premise, we should not accept it. IF you do nothing not clearly exampled in the Bible (regarding Baptism and all else), then we could move to another aspect of this rule. In this thread, MennoSota has made it very clear he completely rejects this premise, but founds his entire argument on this false idea anyway (but ONLY in SOME aspects of ONE Tradition). But it's even weaker than that. I could note that EVERY post at CH is in English (I could actually document THAT) but would that substantiate a Dogma of "It is forbidden to post on the internet in any language but English?" Nope, I'm certain you agree that would be absurd. Now, consider that.... consider that illogic as you think through this Anabaptist apologetic.


3. The 3 Scriptures you quote only say "and." Let's be honest. The word is the most general, generic, non-specific connecting word in the Greek language. It does not mean or imply chronological order. It seems to ME you are deleting the word in the text and replacing it with the word "then." There ARE words in koine Greek that imply chronological order, and some that actually mean that. But never are any of those words found in a verse that also contains the word "baptize." IMO, it is wrong to foundationally base a dogma on a word entirely missing, the actual word deleted and a completely different one inserted - and then the entirely of the new dogma founded on that substituted word.


4. As I note in my thread in Baptism, the historic view regards the word "AND" as connecting things. Thus Baptism and repentance (and a number of other things) are CONNECTED; we speak of them as a "set." That's what the word undeniably means. The historic view rejects that the word that SHOULD be in these texts is a Greek word that mandates chronological order (not the word actually found).




Now, can we return to the issue of this thread?




Thank you.


Blessings!


- Josiah




.

Okay, thank you for sharing Josiah. Since I have said what I think I am not going to reply anymore to this thread. I will say however that I don't think that repentance is "off topic" as you claim because to me repentance is the singluar event that is needed before baptism can occur. Since they are directly related then it is not off topic.

 

[MennoSota]

Okay, thank you for sharing Josiah. Since I have said what I think I am not going to reply anymore to this thread. I will say however that I don't think that repentance is "off topic" as you claim because to me repentance is the singluar event that is needed before baptism can occur. Since they are directly related then it is not off topic.

The specific topic of this thread is biblical support of paedobaptism.
So far, Lamm has provided four Bible references. Zec offered two or three. Neither has exegeted the verses they claim as proof for paedobaptism.
Josiah has provided nothing on this topic thread.
Jsimms, Josiah is intentionally trying to take you off-topic and derail the thread. The issue isn't about need for repentance or age of baptism. Those are distractions brought in by Josiah. The issue is...biblical evidence of paedobaptism.

 

[Lamb]

This thread is now closed as everyone agrees that there is nothing new to add.