Is Baptism Just an Inert Outward Symbol?

[MennoSota]

No problem. I understand.


You'll then exit this thread, but no worries, we'll chat in other threads....



Blessings





.

Yep. Since you refuse to answer your own question, it is best not to engage with empty speak.

 

[Andrew]

Scripture is not silent on baptism. The issue is not scripture, the issue is rightly dividing the word of God.
Where, in scripture do you find water baptism being taught as effectual for giving a person faith and the Holy Spirit.
Where do you find water baptism being given...after a person repents?
Can a spiritually dead man repent, Andrew? Will water baptism make a person spiritually alive by virtue of the act of water baptism? What does scripture say?
There is no riding the fence when someone is teaching that the performance of water baptism causes a person to gain faith and the Holy Spirit. That teaching is works salvation and should be anathema to anyone who believes salvation comes by God's grace alone.

I agree with you but in another thread scripture is silent on THAT subject (infant baptism).
I believe in believers baptism just like I described earlier, I believe 'BE baptised' is not the same as 'GET baptised', Repent and BE baptised (covered) but I have no problem with the ritual of getting physically washed symbolically and I wouldn't discourage it, I look to Jesus as my example and I don't mind getting ritually baptised in the same manner

 

[Josiah]

Yep. Since you refuse to answer your own question, it is best not to engage with empty speak.

It seems you didn't read the opening post...


I presented the following to challenge the 16th Century Anabaptist reinvention of Baptism that you echo, that it is just an outward symbol, that it is largely inert. I presented Scripture (pleased to accept the words the Holy Spirit inspired, the actual words Jesus said, no need to spin them to mean the exact opposite). AND I supplied additional voices to show how these Scriptures were understood until those radical synergists invented a whole new idea. Perhaps you missed that. Here it is again:


What does SCRIPTURE actually say?


I can find no Scriptures that state or indicate that Baptism is inert, ineffectual, just a symbolic ritual. IMO, that new Dogma (one of the defining, distictive dogmas of Baptists) is without any Scripture whatsoever. There is not one Scripture that remotely indicates that Baptism does nothing, accomplishes nothing, that it is SO stressed in the NT
and SO important in the Book of Act and placed equal with teaching in the Great Commission, SO important in the Early Church because... well... worthless, not used by God. There is NOTHING in Scripture to support the Anabaptist's invented dogma of "ONLY an outward symbol of an inner good work performed by the recipient."

But there are several Scriptures, that when taken together, suggest something quite different. IMO, I'm not sure one can create DOGMA here, but there certainly is a powerful implication that God DOES something via baptism,or at least that this can be a "means of grace" - something God can use to convey His gifts. Let's look at some...


Acts 22:16

Acts 2:38

1 Peter 3:21

Romans 6:3-4

1 Corinthians 6:11

1 Corinthians 12:13

Galatians 3:26-27

Ephesians 5:25-27

Colossians 2:11-12

Titus 3:5

1 Peter 3:18-22

John 3:5

Acts 2:38

Romans 6:3-4

1 Corinthians 12:13

Galatians 3:27

Colossians 2:11-12


A couple of quick notes:

1. Nowhere in any of these is the word "then" or "after which" used; the word is "kai" (and) which only associates or connects things; it does not mean or imply sequence or chronological order

2. Also the word "wash" in some of the above verses is a variant of the word "baptize" or "baptism."


We need to also consider that Jesus, the Apostles and the Early Church gave great importance to this! Jesus places it along side of (and seemingly equal to) teaching in the Great Commission, for example. It seems less likely that it would be regarded as so very critical if it is an inert, ineffectual ritual that changes and accomplishes nothing at all. Jesus used the symbol of foot washing, for example, but that ACT was never given much importance and rarely practiced because everyone acknowledged it was a SYMBOL of something inward. Baptism could not be more different.




What Did the Early Christians believe? How did Christians understand these Scriptures?


Again, we find none prior to that synergistic Anabaptist in the late 16th Century who view Baptism as just an inert ritual, only symbol, but great things are ascribed to it. NOT EVEN ONE who spoke of baptism as "an outward act of an inner decision or good work." Below is just a tiny sample. Note that the context of each is WATER BAPTISM.


The Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. 130) “This means that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our hearts, fear and hope in Jesus and in the Spirit.”

The Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 140?): "they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive.”

St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 160?) "And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God’s mercy; and all men may equally obtain it."

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?). "And when we come to refute them [i.e. those heretics], we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith."

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?) "“Now, this is what faith does for us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles, have handed down to us. First of all, it admonishes us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate and died and raised."

St. Clement of Alexandra (A.D. 215?) "The same also takes place in our case, whose exemplar Christ became. Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal."

St. Clement of Alexandra (A.D. 215?) "For it is said, “Put on him the best robe,” which was his the moment he obtained baptism. I mean the glory of baptism, the remission of sins, and the communication of the other blessings, which he obtained immediately he had touched the font."

St. Cyprian (A.D. 255) responding to a man who was asking him the specific question of whether or not the pouring of water in baptism would be valid: "You have asked also, dearest son, what I thought about those who obtain the grace of God while they are weakened by illness – whether or not they are to be reckoned as legitimate Christians who have not been bathed with the saving water, but have had it poured over them."


There are countless more. My point here is not the individual things here said, but the unavoidable and universal affirmation that Baptism is not an inert, ineffectual, mere ritual or pure symbol... Nowhere do we see any sense of it as some "outward ritual indicating a previous good work." Universally, baptism is seen as something God uses to accomplish something. Not until the late 16th Century.... not until the Anabaptists invented the new dogma of "Baptism Can't Do Anything" did ANY Christian agree with that view or even express it. The Anabaptist invention is found nowhere in the Bible and nowhere among Christians .... it is a radical new dogma invented by the radical Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, used to denounce and repudiate as invalid all baptisms that did not involve them.


I am NOT saying this is a "slam dunk".... any more than say the Trinity. I'm only saying the suggestion of both Scripture and history is quite solidly on the historic side, and we simply find NOTHING in Scripture or history that supports the Anabaptist reinvention (nor did they even claim such). I wonder, too, about the argument that "it is OBVIOUS by the words in Scripture that Baptism in just a outward symbol of personal accomplishments and good works by the person." IF it's obvious, where are those Scriptures? And why did no one notice that for over 1500 years, if it's "OBVIOUS?"



Then note the invitation of the thread....

I welcome Scriptures that indicate that Baptism is ONLY an outward symbol of inner accomplishments; that it's sole function is to outwardly SYMBOLIZE a proven reality already accomplished.




We're on page 5. You have yet to present any Scripture or anything else except calls to close this thread and attempts to change the whole topic. You said you have no response or answer.... and yet you keep posting here, perhaps in the hopes that the Staff will close and trash the thread, eliminating it? I don't know.... I can't image why you are posting here since it seems you aren't going to submit anything to support the Anabaptist view you parrot. That's okay, I've tried to be very clear about that, it's no problem, that IS your "right." I'm not saying anything about your not participating, just puzzled as to why you are therefore posting here and calling for the thread to be closed. You seem very motivated by that desire.


Blessings....


- Josiah





.
.

 

[MennoSota]

I agree with you but in another thread scripture is silent on THAT subject (infant baptism).
I believe in believers baptism just like I described earlier, I believe 'BE baptised' is not the same as 'GET baptised', Repent and BE baptised (covered) but I have no problem with the ritual of getting physically washed symbolically and I wouldn't discourage it, I look to Jesus as my example and I don't mind getting ritually baptised in the same manner

No one says a believer shouldn't obey Christ to be water baptized as a disciple of Christ.
The issue is whether there is a magical effect that happens during water baptism that brings about a gift from God in giving faith and the Holy Spirit.
If there is a magical work that happens, which causes God to give, then it makes salvation a synergistic action. Humans must water baptize so that (in order for) God can give a person both faith and the Holy Spirit.
I do not believe the Bible teaches that God must wait until humans act before God can do. (That is a synergist approach, and although Josiah says he is a monergist, it is shown in his belief about baptism that he holds a synergist view of salvation.)
As a monergist, I believe that God does everything in regard to salvation, justification and sanctification without needing our assistance. He accomplishes his sovereign will, often despite our cooperation. Some action by a spiritually dead person does not obligated God to make that dead person alive in Christ. But...that is exactly the opposite of what Lutherans, Catholics and Orthodox are stating about baptism. They state that the action of water baptism on a spiritually dead person obligates God to make that dead person alive in Christ. I ask them...Where does God ever say that He must do that when they water baptize an infant?

 

[MennoSota]

It seems you didn't read the opening post...


I presented the following to challenge the 16th Century Anabaptist reinvention of Baptism that you echo, that it is just an outward symbol, that it is largely inert. I presented Scripture (pleased to accept the words the Holy Spirit inspired, the actual words Jesus said, no need to spin them to mean the exact opposite). AND I supplied additional voices to show how these Scriptures were understood until those radical synergists invented a whole new idea. Perhaps you missed that. Here it is again:


What does SCRIPTURE actually say?


I can find no Scriptures that state or indicate that Baptism is inert, ineffectual, just a symbolic ritual. IMO, that new Dogma (one of the defining, distictive dogmas of Baptists) is without any Scripture whatsoever. There is not one Scripture that remotely indicates that Baptism does nothing, accomplishes nothing, that it is SO stressed in the NT
and SO important in the Book of Act and placed equal with teaching in the Great Commission, SO important in the Early Church because... well... worthless, not used by God. There is NOTHING in Scripture to support the Anabaptist's invented dogma of "ONLY an outward symbol of an inner good work performed by the recipient."

But there are several Scriptures, that when taken together, suggest something quite different. IMO, I'm not sure one can create DOGMA here, but there certainly is a powerful implication that God DOES something via baptism,or at least that this can be a "means of grace" - something God can use to convey His gifts. Let's look at some...


Acts 22:16

Acts 2:38

1 Peter 3:21

Romans 6:3-4

1 Corinthians 6:11

1 Corinthians 12:13

Galatians 3:26-27

Ephesians 5:25-27

Colossians 2:11-12

Titus 3:5

1 Peter 3:18-22

John 3:5

Acts 2:38

Romans 6:3-4

1 Corinthians 12:13

Galatians 3:27

Colossians 2:11-12


A couple of quick notes:

1. Nowhere in any of these is the word "then" or "after which" used; the word is "kai" (and) which only associates or connects things; it does not mean or imply sequence or chronological order

2. Also the word "wash" in some of the above verses is a variant of the word "baptize" or "baptism."


We need to also consider that Jesus, the Apostles and the Early Church gave great importance to this! Jesus places it along side of (and seemingly equal to) teaching in the Great Commission, for example. It seems less likely that it would be regarded as so very critical if it is an inert, ineffectual ritual that changes and accomplishes nothing at all. Jesus used the symbol of foot washing, for example, but that ACT was never given much importance and rarely practiced because everyone acknowledged it was a SYMBOL of something inward. Baptism could not be more different.




What Did the Early Christians believe? How did Christians understand these Scriptures?


Again, we find none prior to that synergistic Anabaptist in the late 16th Century who view Baptism as just an inert ritual, only symbol, but great things are ascribed to it. NOT EVEN ONE who spoke of baptism as "an outward act of an inner decision or good work." Below is just a tiny sample. Note that the context of each is WATER BAPTISM.


The Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. 130) “This means that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our hearts, fear and hope in Jesus and in the Spirit.”

The Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 140?): "they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive.”

St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 160?) "And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God’s mercy; and all men may equally obtain it."

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?). "And when we come to refute them [i.e. those heretics], we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith."

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?) "“Now, this is what faith does for us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles, have handed down to us. First of all, it admonishes us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate and died and raised."

St. Clement of Alexandra (A.D. 215?) "The same also takes place in our case, whose exemplar Christ became. Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal."

St. Clement of Alexandra (A.D. 215?) "For it is said, “Put on him the best robe,” which was his the moment he obtained baptism. I mean the glory of baptism, the remission of sins, and the communication of the other blessings, which he obtained immediately he had touched the font."

St. Cyprian (A.D. 255) responding to a man who was asking him the specific question of whether or not the pouring of water in baptism would be valid: "You have asked also, dearest son, what I thought about those who obtain the grace of God while they are weakened by illness – whether or not they are to be reckoned as legitimate Christians who have not been bathed with the saving water, but have had it poured over them."


There are countless more. My point here is not the individual things here said, but the unavoidable and universal affirmation that Baptism is not an inert, ineffectual, mere ritual or pure symbol... Nowhere do we see any sense of it as some "outward ritual indicating a previous good work." Universally, baptism is seen as something God uses to accomplish something. Not until the late 16th Century.... not until the Anabaptists invented the new dogma of "Baptism Can't Do Anything" did ANY Christian agree with that view or even express it. The Anabaptist invention is found nowhere in the Bible and nowhere among Christians .... it is a radical new dogma invented by the radical Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, used to denounce and repudiate as invalid all baptisms that did not involve them.


I am NOT saying this is a "slam dunk".... any more than say the Trinity. I'm only saying the suggestion of both Scripture and history is quite solidly on the historic side, and we simply find NOTHING in Scripture or history that supports the Anabaptist reinvention (nor did they even claim such). I wonder, too, about the argument that "it is OBVIOUS by the words in Scripture that Baptism in just a outward symbol of personal accomplishments and good works by the person." IF it's obvious, where are those Scriptures? And why did no one notice that for over 1500 years, if it's "OBVIOUS?"



Then note the invitation of the thread....

I welcome Scriptures that indicate that Baptism is ONLY an outward symbol of inner accomplishments; that it's sole function is to outwardly SYMBOLIZE a proven reality already accomplished.




We're on page 5. You have yet to present any Scripture or anything else except calls to close this thread and attempts to change the whole topic. You said you have no response or answer.... and yet you keep posting here, perhaps in the hopes that the Staff will close and trash the thread, eliminating it? I don't know.... I can't image why you are posting here since it seems you aren't going to submit anything to support the Anabaptist view you parrot. That's okay, I've tried to be very clear about that, it's no problem, that IS your "right", I'm not saying anything about your not participating, just puzzled as to why you are therefore posting here and calling for the thread to be closed. You seem very motivated by that desire.


Blessings....


- Josiah





.
.

I read the title of the thread, which asks the question.
I read what you wrote after the question. You never answer your question. You just regurgitate your anabaptist mantra, which has nothing to do with your question.
Now, please be a dear and answer your own question by telling us exactly how water baptism is effectual. What effect does the recipient of water baptism receive from God during the ceremony of water baptism?

 

[Albion]

I agree with you but in another thread scripture is silent on THAT subject (infant baptism).
I believe in believers baptism just like I described earlier, I believe 'BE baptised' is not the same as 'GET baptised', Repent and BE baptised (covered) but I have no problem with the ritual of getting physically washed symbolically and I wouldn't discourage it, I look to Jesus as my example and I don't mind getting ritually baptised in the same manner

You, my friend, believe whatever you want to believe, just as when we were discussing Pentecostalism at the time we were both relatively new members here.

You felt that stuff was genuine, so nothing said to the opposite made any impression, not logic nor facts nor Scripture. At last you let a little of it seep in and you reconsidered.

I am optimistic that the same will happen with baptism, since all the facts are on the side of baptizing people irrespective of age, which is to say, the belief of the historic Christian church, as opposed to something that was looked upon as crazy by both Catholics and Protestants when it made its big splash (literally--and in the village fountain) around about the 16th century.

 

[MennoSota]

You, my friend, believe whatever you want to believe, just as when we were discussing Pentecostalism at the time we were both relatively new members here.

You felt that stuff was genuine, so nothing said to the opposite made any impression, not logic nor facts nor Scripture. At last you let a little of it seep in and you reconsidered.

I am optimistic that the same will happen with baptism, since all the facts are on the side of baptizing people irrespective of age, which is to say, the belief of the historic Christian church, as opposed to something that was looked upon as crazy by both Catholics and Protestants when it made its big splash (literally--and in the village fountain) around about the 16th century.

Albion, no one has ever placed an age restriction on baptism. That is the outright lie from Josiah.
Speaking for myself, I place the discernment to baptize upon the person who has been redeemed, been given faith and has repented of sin. When that person, who once was dead in sins, follows Christ's command to be baptized, the elders baptize this person.
What is not done is the elders don't baptize a person who is dead in sin, has no evidence of being redeemed, has no evidence of faith and has not repented of sin. In other words, they don't put the cart before the horse and then assert that a magical event in the water baptism ceremony makes the recipient of water baptism alive in Christ, filled with faith, filled with the Holy Spirit and repentant of their sins.
So...age is Josiah's strawman, to which you are now clinging. If I were you, I would not cling to a strawman as my crutch for belief. But, that's just me. Do as you wish.

 

[atpollard]

.What does SCRIPTURE say?

Apparently not what you think.

Acts 22:16

Acts 2:38

1 Peter 3:21

[Acts 22:3-16 NIV] 3 "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today. 4 I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, 5 as the high priest and all the Council can themselves testify. I even obtained letters from them to their associates in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished. 6 "About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. 7 I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, 'Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?' 8 " 'Who are you, Lord?' I asked. " 'I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,' he replied. 9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. 10 " 'What shall I do, Lord?' I asked. " 'Get up,' the Lord said, 'and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.' 11 My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me. 12 "A man named Ananias came to see me. He was a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there. 13 He stood beside me and said, 'Brother Saul, receive your sight!' And at that very moment I was able to see him. 14 "Then he said: 'The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. 15 You will be his witness to all people of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'

• Was the man zealous for God from youth, who was chosen by God to see the risen Christ, who acknowledged Jesus as Lord (God), and then had his sight restored by a prophet sent to tell him of his mission ... a damned sinner until he was actually baptized by the water?
• Was Paul more like the thief on the cross, saved by the choice and will of God and faith in Christ ... who was baptized as an act of obedience for the forgiveness of his specific sins against Christ under the OT Law that required John the Baptist’s Baptism of Repentence.
• This is an excellent example to point out that the infant baptism into the covenant is no more salvific than the OT circumcision into the covenant. Paul was a devout Jew, but unsaved until called by GOD. It was AFTER God called Paul that God wanted Paul to be baptized. Call, repent, baptize ... a pattern we see over and over.

[Acts 2:36-41 NIV] 36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah." 37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call." 40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

• Were those that heard and believed the gospel and were “cut to the heart” still unsaved reprobates devoid of the working of the Holy Spirit in their heart until they were physically baptized in the water?
• Does their cut to the heart not indicate that they believed what the heard and repented of their sins ... neither of which is possible for a “natural man”?
• As an aside, note that “those who ACCEPTED his message were baptized, not “and their households irrespective of personal belief”, so the “and” of “repent and be baptized” must be a stronger link than you have been claiming.

[1 Peter 3:18-22 NIV] 18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits-- 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

• Starting with Noah, only eight people were saved ... and none of those eight were young children and all of those eight believed (acted in faith by climbing aboard the Ark as an act of trust in God). Noah’s ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD was saved!
• Peter points out that salvation in Christ is like salvation on the Ark.
• ”this water SYMBOLIZES baptism that now saves you” ... did the water “save” Noah or did trusting God save Noah and the water destroy evil?
• ”not the removal of dirt” ... we are now talking of the water of baptism SYMBOLIZING something ... “but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.” ... does water create the pledge between you and God, or was there already a pledge that the water now ceremonially marks (as the building of an altar and a sacrifice marked the pledges of the OT)?
• You are saved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ!

 

[Andrew]

You, my friend, believe whatever you want to believe, just as when we were discussing Pentecostalism at the time we were both relatively new members here.

You felt that stuff was genuine, so nothing said to the opposite made any impression, not logic nor facts nor Scripture. At last you let a little of it seep in and you reconsidered.

I am optimistic that the same will happen with baptism, since all the facts are on the side of baptizing people irrespective of age, which is to say, the belief of the historic Christian church, as opposed to something that was looked upon as crazy by both Catholics and Protestants when it made its big splash (literally--and in the village fountain) around about the 16th century.

You're right, I'm not afraid to change my mind about what I once considered.. I used to be a unitarian until good conversation here help give me an understanding outside of what my church was teaching.
Baptism beliefs don't really bother me, I'm not putting all of my eggs in one basket with this matter.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

Albion, no one has ever placed an age restriction on baptism. That is the outright lie from Josiah.
Speaking for myself, I place the discernment to baptize upon the person who has been redeemed, been given faith and has repented of sin. When that person, who once was dead in sins, follows Christ's command to be baptized, the elders baptize this person.
What is not done is the elders don't baptize a person who is dead in sin, has no evidence of being redeemed, has no evidence of faith and has not repented of sin. In other words, they don't put the cart before the horse and then assert that a magical event in the water baptism ceremony makes the recipient of water baptism alive in Christ, filled with faith, filled with the Holy Spirit and repentant of their sins.
So...age is Josiah's strawman, to which you are now clinging. If I were you, I would not cling to a strawman as my crutch for belief. But, that's just me. Do as you wish.

I have been to churches that absolutely refuse to baptize people who are not a certain age. They never do say what the magic age is that makes a person eligible for Baptism. They say it varies. They also teach Baptism is purely a symbol and does not deliver anything to the Christian, contrary to Scripture.

Scottsdale Bible Church in Scottadale, AZ for one. Hope Church in Wilton, CT for another. I know this because I personally attended both churches for years. So Josiah is not lying and he is not inventing anything. Stop bearing false witness about those who dare to disagree with you.

 

[atpollard]

Lamm, you have now moved entirely away from scripture and you make your argument from perceived experience.
Feelings do not drive faith.
God gives faith (no water necessary). We see all the saints before the cross receiving faith with no water applied. Perhaps you received faith earlier and the water symbolized what God had done. You felt a euphoria at obeying God in being water baptized, yet your faith was there before water ever touched you body.
I have addressed and gone through the scripture verses you shared. Would you care to exegete them yourself to show us what exactly God says happens in water baptism?

Please tread lightly on that particular path.

You are partly mistaken about the value of personal experiences. Are Paul’s personal experiences at his conversion irrelevant?

You are correct that “personal experiences” cannot contradict scripture, but we must tread very lightly around “what” and “how” God may have chosen to reveal himself to any individual.

 

[atpollard]

You're right, I'm not afraid to change my mind about what I once considered.. I used to be a unitarian until good conversation here help give me an understanding outside of what my church was teaching.
Baptism beliefs don't really bother me, I'm not putting all of my eggs in one basket with this matter.

Besides, it is too late to change your baptism. Infant or adult, sprinkled, poured or immersed ... you seem to have a heart that desires to follow God, so it seems to have worked.

 

[Albion]

Albion, no one has ever placed an age restriction on baptism. That is the outright lie from Josiah.

You must think I was born yesterday if you think I will believe that.

I have read several of our colleagues here say it; I know personally of a number of churches in my vicinity that say it; and of course you have agreed with the proposition in your posts here.

P.S. Do not bother walking back your earlier statements now.

"…we believe and teach that the baptism of believers is of God and his word, and infant baptism of the dragon and the beast… Since Christ has commanded that believers should be baptized, and not infants, all reasonable-minded men must admit, that infant baptism … is nothing less than a ceremony of anti-christ, open blasphemy, an enchanting sin, a molten calf; yea, abomination and idolatry.”
--Menno Simons (1492-1561)




.

 

[MennoSota]

They also teach Baptism is purely a symbol and does not deliver anything to the Christian, contrary to Scripture.

What does water baptism deliver? Tell me specifically. Then, show the scripture passages that state your claim. Finally, exegete those passages so you can show me what, exactly, the passage says to make your assertion valid.
Thank you.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

I think he says whatever he has to in order to come out on top in a conversation or debate. What he actually does believe is anyone's guess. I don't believe a word he types.

 

[MennoSota]

Please tread lightly on that particular path.

You are partly mistaken about the value of personal experiences. Are Paul’s personal experiences at his conversion irrelevant?

You are correct that “personal experiences” cannot contradict scripture, but we must tread very lightly around “what” and “how” God may have chosen to reveal himself to any individual.

My point is that personal experience does not make a dogma valid, nor does it invalidate the dogma. It just means that it is what you perceive it to be. (Post-modernism)
For me, Paul's account is different in that Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what God had done. I don't think we can make that claim with our experiences.
It is not a valid argument to say that water baptism gave me faith and the Holy Spirit because I felt something. There is no way to invalidate that claim either...because the entire argument is made upon feelings and perceived experience. This is precisely why we discern truth via what God has declared. The Bible is our absolute standard of measurement. Upon God's word we can make our stand. If we make our stand upon emotions and perceived experience we will be tossed around by the waves of human emotion.

 

[MennoSota]

You must think I was born yesterday if you think I will believe that.

I have read several of our colleagues here say it; I know personally of a number of churches in my vicinity that say it; and of course you have agreed with the proposition in your posts here.

P.S. Do not bother walking back your earlier statements now.

"…we believe and teach that the baptism of believers is of God and his word, and infant baptism of the dragon and the beast… Since Christ has commanded that believers should be baptized, and not infants, all reasonable-minded men must admit, that infant baptism … is nothing less than a ceremony of anti-christ, open blasphemy, an enchanting sin, a molten calf; yea, abomination and idolatry.”
--Menno Simons (1492-1561)




.

Where does Menno Simons state a specific age, Albion? I'm reading the quote, I don't see an age of X in his statement.
I see Menno Simons imply that there is no means of knowing that an infant is a believer, therefore infant baptism is antichrist and idolatry. How is Menno Simons wrong about infant baptism?

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

What does water baptism deliver? Tell me specifically. Then, show the scripture passages that state your claim. Finally, exegete those passages so you can show me what, exactly, the passage says to make your assertion valid.
Thank you.

No need. You've been shown countless times in many threads. I'm not posting the same Scriptures I've posted for you before only for you to accuse me of eisegesis.

 

[Josiah]

Where does Menno Simons state a specific age

You have the wrong thread.

I've noted your silly point that "infant" "child" "baby" "young" have nothing to do with AGE. But I'm not buying it. When Menno Simons (the inventor of all the Baptism dogmas you parrot and evade) says, "we believe and teach that the baptism of believers is of God and his word, and infant baptism of the dragon and the beast… Since Christ has commanded that believers should be baptized, and not infants, all reasonable-minded men must admit, that infant baptism … is nothing less than a ceremony of anti-christ, open blasphemy, an enchanting sin, a molten calf; yea, abomination and idolatry.” IMO, he's likely talking about infants - and thus AGE.


And once again, yet again, still one more time, you have the wrong thread. I realize - we all do, my friend - that you stated you have nothing to say regarding this thread, nothing to support the Dogma you echo.... and that's okay. BUT you seem very, very determined to get this thread closed.... and since you haven't succeeded in getting the thread closed and pushed away so that no one see sit.... it seems you've just gone to your favorite ploy - change the subject. In the age thread, you have had COUNTLESS opportunities to show where the Bible states "we are commanded to not baptize infants" but you won't. This thread is not about the AGE of anything or anyone concerning anything whatsoever. DID YOU READ THE OPENING POST YET? In the Infant Be are commandaptism thread, you refused to talk about that topic but insisted on talking about other (any OTHER) Anabaptist dogmas - Repentance Only Baptism and Credoaptism and Immersion only Baptism - no one could get you to address the issue of AGE (only that evidently "infant" "baby" "child" and "too young" have nothing to do with AGE of anyone). Now you are over here, desiring to change the issue to AGE since you can't get the thread closed and indicated you have nothing to contribute toward your dogma. Friend, this thread is not about age. AT ALL. It's about the Anabaptist dogma that Baptism is inert, that it is only a symbol, that it is an outward symbol of an inner already accomplished personal achievement. You indicated you have nothing to support that, so... well.... why are you posting? Why the perpetual attempt to change the topic and derail the thread or get Staff to close it?

I see Menno Simons stating that infant baptism is antichrist and idolatry.

You have the wrong thread.


I'd be curious to see you substantiate that, but of course, not in this thread. No one has ever gotten you to address the issue of age in the infant baptism thread. But I'm sure that would never happen; in that thread, you insist on talking about everything BUT age.

This thread is about his teaching that baptism does nothing, baptism is inert, baptism is only an outward symbol of an accomplishes personal spiritual achievement. Way back 58 posts ago, in the opening post, you were invited to submit the words of Scripture (and anything additional of your choice) to support that. You have yet to submit anything to the issue AT ALL. Just calls for someone to close the thread so that it will not get read.... and many attempts to change the topic....



.

 

[Albion]

Where does Menno Simons state a specific age, Albion?

According to the statement, he believes that infants are ineligible, so that necessarily means that there is an age requirement. ANY age that does not include infants constitutes an age requirement. As we know, Baptists have no consistent opinion about what age is good enough--8, 9, early teens, later teens, whatever--but all of them exclude infants (on account of age), so there is an age requirement.