Of course, NONE have presented ANY Scripture to support this new tradition of Mr. Thomas Muenzer of withholding baptism from any who have not yet reached the age of X. IN STEAD OF THAT, we've seen a host of Scriptures showing no support for this new practice of withholding. Odd how they have been so persistent in showing the lack of support for Mr. Muenzer's new tradition that they defend and embrace and impose.
Some, deserting the issue of the thread, have attempted to divert the discussion...
+ Some have tried to prove that the word "and" mandates and requires order, sequence. But since they deny that it does, it's silly that they try to insist that it does.
+ Some have tried to argue that the Bible is wrong to use the word "and" and should have used the word "then." But admit that actually the word IS "and" rather than the word Scirpture should have used.
+ Some have tried to prove that we must get formal consent from all recipients before we cagive them anything or do anything related to them. But then they have a hard time with the COMMAND from God that 8 year old boys be circumcized and a hard time justifying their own practice of not getting prior consent before they preach/teach the Gospel or speak to people about Christ.
+ Some have argued that the norm is NOT what Scripture teaches or commands but rather the few examples of things that happen to be recorded in the NT. Problem is: Not all of the examples in the Bible show that the receipents FIRST celebrated X numbers of birthdays OR gave their consent OR wept buckets of tears in repentance OR correctly recited the sinner's prayer OR ANY of the mandates and restrictions they have imposed since the 16th Century. And of course, they themselves reject their own new mandate (we can't do anything unless it's exampled in the Bible).... they do it ALL THE TIME in their churches and they do it when they post on the internet, doing LOTS of things never once exampled in the NT. They then go on to insist it's okay to do things never illustrated in the Bible BUT they insist it is wrong and forbidden to do anything not clearly exampled in the pages of the NT.
.
Yup, not one verse to confirm this new, rare tradition of Mr. Thomas Muenzer invented in the 16th Century.
Yup, not one verse to withhold baptism to any under the age of X, until the receiver has celebrated X number of birthdays.
Yup, not one verse that indicates we must forbid baptism to any who has not first repented.
Yup, not one verse that indicates we must forbid baptism to any who has not yet recited the sinner's pray and adequately participated in an altar call.
Yup, not one verse that indicates we must forbid baptism to any who has not first given their consent to such.
Yup, we have the command to baptize. But no stated prohibitions based on race, age, gender, color, nationality, marital status, citizenship, hair or eye color, IQ, educational level, emotional frame of mind. Nothing that says, "But do
NOT - repeat do
NOT - baptize or permit to be baptized any who have not yet celebrated X number of birthdays and/or are not citizens of X country and/or who do not have an IQ of at least X and/or who are unmarried and/or do not first give their written consent and/or have not yet passed a test showing they understand God and all things Christian." The new tradition we're discussing in this thread is the one invented by Mr. Thomas Muenzer in the 16th Century that we must withhold baptism from any under the age of X. Folks have argued Scripture disallows the practice - but as yet they have been unwilling or unable to give this verse(s).
.
