Infant Baptism

[Josiah]

"Repent and be baptized" - stop neglecting the command

Ah. I see you have returned to your premise that the word "AND" mandates order.

It's absurd. It's laughable. You already admitted your argument is false (and you abandoned it for many pages - now it's back).


YES - as has been posted over and over and over - baptism is ASSOCIATED with many, many things. This thread is not about any of that. It's about paedobaptism (a universal practice going back at least to 69 AD at the very latest) and Mr. Thomas Muenzer's new tradition of the rule of minimum age (anti-paedobaptism), the new rule that receivers of baptism must have attained the age of X before baptism for them is permitted.

Your now renewed point (previously admitted to be wrong) is that AND mandates order, so that according to this verse you keep repeating, FIRST one must repent and THEN, after that, they may be baptized. You're making a new rule out of this, all based on your premise that the word "AND" (kai in Greek) MANDATES order, sequence. It's silly. It's absurd. Neither in English or Greek does the word "and" mandate order. You know that (you've admitted that)..... I know that..... everyone here knows that. It's a silly, absurd argument. One you've already admitted is wrong. But having nothing else - it seems you've returned to it.




.

 

[Full O Beans]

Unbelievable the gymnastics performed to ignore something so obviously said by the power of Holy Spirit, even to the extreme in ignoring the simple word, "and", in order to superimpose religion over the spiritual knowing of a truth.

This is the reason why these folks cannot provide scripture to support themselves. They do not respect God's word. Religion is their god. Sad.

 

[Josiah]

something so obviously

Then it's easy: Just quote SCRIPTURE STATING this long plethora of new rules you're promoting.
If SCRIPTURE STATES them, then it could not be easier: Just give the verbatim quote where it's STATED in Scripture.
We're waiting. How much more time do you think you need?



The point has been that for man to make rules is "wrong" and makes that one "religious" and such is to be ignored and repudiated.
Several here have invented a long list of new rules.
GOTTA do this!
GOTTA do that!
MUST jump through this hoop
MUST jump through that hoop
All your rules, rules, rules, rules....
MUST have attained the age of X
MUST have first wept buckets of tears in repentance
MUST have first accurately recited the sinner's prayer
MUST have first given their consent
MUST be a sinner because righteous people are forbidden.
All your rules, rules, rules, rules, rules, rules, rules....


Then you stress that rules NOT CLEARLY STATED IN SCRIPTURE are to be repudiated, ignored, condemned. They just make the inventors "religious" and "wrong."


So, where is the STATEMENT in SCRIPTURE that STATES all these rules, rules, rules, rules you have promoted?
You insist Scripture STATES every one of them.
But in 69 pages, you've not yet quoted even one Scripture that states even one of these rules of yours.
How long will it take for you to get around to doing that?
I'm sure you're busy, but how much more time do you need?
It's been 69 pages of your posts so far, how many more do you think is necessary before you get around to this?

ignoring the simple word, "and"

I'm not ignoring the word "and." YOU ARE.
YOU are deleting the word. Then replacing it with the word "THEN."




- Josiah




.

 

[Full O Beans]

Please post scripture that supports your religious take on this topic. So far, all you have is your religion's dogma.

 

[Alithis]

Ah. I see you have returned to your premise that the word "AND" mandates order.

It's absurd. It's laughable. You already admitted your argument is false (and you abandoned it for many pages - now it's back).


YES - as has been posted over and over and over - baptism is ASSOCIATED with many, many things. This thread is not about any of that. It's about paedobaptism (a universal practice going back at least to 69 AD at the very latest) and Mr. Thomas Muenzer's new tradition of the rule of minimum age (anti-paedobaptism), the new rule that receivers of baptism must have attained the age of X before baptism for them is permitted.

Your now renewed point (previously admitted to be wrong) is that AND mandates order, so that according to this verse you keep repeating, FIRST one must repent and THEN, after that, they may be baptized. You're making a new rule out of this, all based on your premise that the word "AND" (kai in Greek) MANDATES order, sequence. It's silly. It's absurd. Neither in English or Greek does the word "and" mandate order. You know that (you've admitted that)..... I know that..... everyone here knows that. It's a silly, absurd argument. One you've already admitted is wrong. But having nothing else - it seems you've returned to it.




.

tut tut .. how dishonest .. i actualy said -"stop dissecting the command -and I present it just as it is written . ( and SHOUTING.. wont make it right )

but here you are again dissecting it and detracting from what is written to shore up your carnal tradition . and then there you go again spouting on about the traditions of men and ignoring the command -
speaks volumes . your more interested in promoting your denominations tradition then you are in the direct unambiguous word of God .

 

[Alithis]

Then it's easy: Just quote SCRIPTURE STATING this long plethora of new rules you're promoting.
If SCRIPTURE STATES them, then it could not be easier: Just give the verbatim quote where it's STATED in Scripture.
We're waiting. How much more time do you think you need?



The point has been that for man to make rules is "wrong" and makes that one "religious" and such is to be ignored and repudiated.
Several here have invented a long list of new rules.
GOTTA do this!
GOTTA do that!
MUST jump through this hoop
MUST jump through that hoop
All your rules, rules, rules, rules....
MUST have attained the age of X
MUST have first wept buckets of tears in repentance
MUST have first accurately recited the sinner's prayer
MUST have first given their consent
MUST be a sinner because righteous people are forbidden.
All your rules, rules, rules, rules, rules, rules, rules....


Then you stress that rules NOT CLEARLY STATED IN SCRIPTURE are to be repudiated, ignored, condemned. They just make the inventors "religious" and "wrong."


So, where is the STATEMENT in SCRIPTURE that STATES all these rules, rules, rules, rules you have promoted?
You insist Scripture STATES every one of them.
But in 69 pages, you've not yet quoted even one Scripture that states even one of these rules of yours.
How long will it take for you to get around to doing that?
I'm sure you're busy, but how much more time do you need?
It's been 69 pages of your posts so far, how many more do you think is necessary before you get around to this?







I'm not ignoring the word "and." YOU ARE.
YOU are deleting the word. Then replacing it with the word "THEN."




- Josiah




.

these rules are in your imagination .. no one has established them as rule .. they are ideas surrounding the topic .
i have never said you cant baptise infants ..i have simply said its not true baptism when no conscious will to submit to it is involved and no knowledge of the gospel is involves and thus no response to the Gospel made .being that one of those responses is repentance .

you say i have returned to this stance .. i have not ..i have never departed from this stance .

the word of god states repent and be baptised .. your the only one here slicing that into pieces and trying to jam the pieces into your tradition to justify your tradition . i have no tradition on the issue thats needs justifying .

 

[Josiah]

Then it's easy: Just quote SCRIPTURE STATING this long plethora of new rules you're promoting.
If SCRIPTURE STATES them, then it could not be easier: Just give the verbatim quote where it's STATED in Scripture.
We're waiting. How much more time do you think you need?



The point has been that for man to make rules is "wrong" and makes that one "religious" and such is to be ignored and repudiated.
Several here have invented a long list of new rules.
GOTTA do this!
GOTTA do that!
MUST jump through this hoop
MUST jump through that hoop
All your rules, rules, rules, rules....
MUST have attained the age of X
MUST have first wept buckets of tears in repentance
MUST have first accurately recited the sinner's prayer
MUST have first given their consent
MUST be a sinner because righteous people are forbidden.
All your rules, rules, rules, rules, rules, rules, rules....


Then you stress that rules NOT CLEARLY STATED IN SCRIPTURE are to be repudiated, ignored, condemned. They just make the inventors "religious" and "wrong."


So, where is the STATEMENT in SCRIPTURE that STATES all these rules, rules, rules, rules you have promoted?
You insist Scripture STATES every one of them.
But in 69 pages, you've not yet quoted even one Scripture that states even one of these rules of yours.
How long will it take for you to get around to doing that?
I'm sure you're busy, but how much more time do you need?
It's been 69 pages of your posts so far, how many more do you think is necessary before you get around to this?




I'm not ignoring the word "and." YOU ARE.
YOU are deleting the word. Then replacing it with the word "THEN."





- Josiah

these rules are in your imagination ..

GREAT! So you are repudiating all your posts, all your rules you've been pushing and promoting for 69 pages.....

Rule 1: " MUST first attained the age of X - not an infant" - REPUDIATED! Dropped! Infant baptism is now just fine!

Rule 2: "MUST first repent!" REPUDIATED! Dropped. No more rule about first repenting.

Rule 3: " MUST first recite that 'Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior!" REPUDIATED! Dropped. No more any rule about believing first.

Rule 4: "MUST first give their consent!" REPUDIATED! Dropped! No more rule about first consenting!

Rule 5: "MUST be a sinner because righteous people are forbidden!" REPUDIATED! Dropped. No more rule about having to be a sinner.



Well, there goes every one of your posts in these 69 pages.....


Glad to see you repudiating all of it.





.

 

[Full O Beans]

Woohoo! 69 and counting! Still no scripture to prove that God says we must baptize unaware and unrepentant people?

Romans 10:17
So faith comes from hearing, that is, hearing the Good News about Christ.

 

[Josiah]

no scripture to prove that God says we must baptize unaware and unrepentant people?

So you now list TWO rules:

1. Thou mayest ONLY baptize those who are first "aware" of "X"

2. Thou mayest ONLY baptize those who first repent.

Which is now in conflict with your cohort in this, who just repudiated all of these rules....

Okay, we'll wait for the SCRIPTURE STATES these rules (or take YOUR advise and repudiate and reject them as wrong and "religious")....

"Thou mayest ONLY baptize those who first are aware of X; thou mayest NOT permit baptism to be received by one who is NOT first aware of X"

"Thou mayest ONLY baptize those who FIRST have repented; thou mayest NOT permit baptism to to received by any who have not FIRST done that!"


When do you think you'll get around to quoting Scripture STATING those two rules?

So faith comes from hearing, that is, hearing the Good News about Christ.

Are you now (on page 69) listing YET ANOTHER rule? One none remembered until just how?

3. Thou mayest NOT permit baptism to any who art deaf and cannot hear! Thou must insure any receiver FIRST hath good hearing!"

We'll wait for the Scripture that STATES that rule too.



BOY, how you guys keep generating more and more and more RULES about this!!!! Ever more rules!
Rules, rules, rules, rules, rules!
You keep adding more. Then taking them away. Then making new ones.
Rules, rules, rules, rules, rules!

But of course, there us YOUR emphasis that any rules are to be ignored and repudiated and condemn them as "religious" unless SCRIPTURE STATES them.


How long should we continue to wait for you to quote Scripture STATING any of the long, long list of RULES you've been writing and promoting in this thread?





.






.

 

[Full O Beans]

No rules, just common sense. The command to be baptized is to those who are believers, and sentient ones at that.

 

[Full O Beans]

Excerpted from: http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/salvatio/bapsav07.htm

"...What then is the meaning of Acts 22:16? If Saul had already been saved and his sins had already been washed away, then why was he told three days later to “be baptized and wash away your sins”? Because Saul was already cleansed spiritually, these words must refer to the symbolism of baptism. He was to be baptized in token of and as an outward sign of the washing away of his sins which had already taken place. Water baptism is meant to be a wonderful picture of God’s great salvation, including the washing away of sins. When a person is being baptized he is presenting a public testimony to show what happened to him when he was saved. As David Brown has said, “Remission of sins is obtained solely through faith in the Lord Jesus (Acts 10:43) but baptism being the visible seal of this, it is here and elsewhere naturally transferred from the inward act of faith to that which publicly and formally proclaims it” (namely, the symbolic act of water baptism).


When a person is being baptized he is presenting this message: “I am being baptized today in obedience to Christ’s command, to publicly show my identification with the Lord Jesus Christ and to present a picture of the new life that I have in Him. I want you all to know that because of what my Saviour did for me on the cross, I am a new creature in Him and all of my sins have been washed away. I now desire to follow Christ and to walk in newness of life, as He enables me to do so. My salvation depends on Christ’s work alone.”


But how contrary to the gospel it would be if a person were to say something like this: “I am being baptized today because even though I have believed on Christ I am not yet saved. I am still in my sins and my sins will not be washed away until I am baptized in water. So although I now stand before you as a filthy, unforgiven sinner, in just a moment I’m going to come up out of the water saved and forgiven. My salvation depends not only on Christ’s work, but also on my work. My salvation is conditioned, not only on faith, but on my being obedient to water baptism.” This is a perversion of the grace of God (see Romans 11:6)..."


.

 

[Josiah]

Then it's easy: Just quote SCRIPTURE STATING this long plethora of new rules you're promoting.
If SCRIPTURE STATES them, then it could not be easier: Just give the verbatim quote where it's STATED in Scripture.
We're waiting. How much more time do you think you need?



The point has been that for man to make rules is "wrong" and makes that one "religious" and such is to be ignored and repudiated.
Several here have invented a long list of new rules.
GOTTA do this!
GOTTA do that!
MUST jump through this hoop
MUST jump through that hoop
All your rules, rules, rules, rules....

MUST have attained the age of X
MUST have first wept buckets of tears in repentance
MUST have first accurately recited the sinner's prayer
MUST have first given their consent
MUST be a sinner because righteous people are forbidden.
All your rules, rules, rules, rules, rules, rules, rules....


Then you stress that rules NOT CLEARLY STATED IN SCRIPTURE are to be repudiated, ignored, condemned. They just make the inventors "religious" and "wrong."


So, where is the STATEMENT in SCRIPTURE that STATES all these rules, rules, rules, rules you have promoted?
You insist Scripture STATES every one of them.
But in 69 pages, you've not yet quoted even one Scripture that states even one of these rules of yours.
How long will it take for you to get around to doing that?
I'm sure you're busy, but how much more time do you need?
It's been 69 pages of your posts so far, how many more do you think is necessary before you get around to this?





I'm not ignoring the word "and." YOU ARE.
YOU are deleting the word. Then replacing it with the word "THEN."




- Josiah


.

"...What then is the meaning of Acts 22:16? If Saul had already been saved and his sins had already been washed away, then why was he told three days later to “be baptized and wash away your sins”? Because Saul was already cleansed spiritually, these words must refer to the symbolism of baptism. He was to be baptized in token of and as an outward sign of the washing away of his sins which had already taken place. Water baptism is meant to be a wonderful picture of God’s great salvation, including the washing away of sins. When a person is being baptized he is presenting a public testimony to show what happened to him when he was saved. As David Brown has said, “Remission of sins is obtained solely through faith in the Lord Jesus (Acts 10:43) but baptism being the visible seal of this, it is here and elsewhere naturally transferred from the inward act of faith to that which publicly and formally proclaims it” (namely, the symbolic act of water baptism).


When a person is being baptized he is presenting this message: “I am being baptized today in obedience to Christ’s command, to publicly show my identification with the Lord Jesus Christ and to present a picture of the new life that I have in Him. I want you all to know that because of what my Saviour did for me on the cross, I am a new creature in Him and all of my sins have been washed away. I now desire to follow Christ and to walk in newness of life, as He enables me to do so. My salvation depends on Christ’s work alone.”


But how contrary to the gospel it would be if a person were to say something like this: “I am being baptized today because even though I have believed on Christ I am not yet saved. I am still in my sins and my sins will not be washed away until I am baptized in water. So although I now stand before you as a filthy, unforgiven sinner, in just a moment I’m going to come up out of the water saved and forgiven. My salvation depends not only on Christ’s work, but also on my work. My salvation is conditioned, not only on faith, but on my being obedient to water baptism.” This is a perversion of the grace of God (see Romans 11:6)..."


.

Nice questions. But you insist that rules are wrong, bad, make one "religious" UNLESS SCRIPTURE STATES them.

Of for 70 pages now, you and a couple of others have made and promoted and defended a WHOLE PLETHORA of rules!
Rules, rules, rules, rules, rules, rules, rules.
I've lost count of them ALL!


GOTTA be X years old before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA weep X buckets of tears in repentances before one may be permitted to be baptized
GOTTA correctly recite the sinner's prayer and state outloud, "Jesus is my Lord and Savior" before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA get the recipients formal consent before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA have proof they are a sinner and not righteous before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA prove they can hear and are not deaf before one may be permitted to be baptized.

And that's just SOME of the rules that have been made just in this thread!
Rules, rules, rules, rules, rules, rules!
New ones keep popping up! Then removed! Then new ones produced...
Rules, rules, rules, rules, rules, rules!
Gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta..... rules, rules, rules, rules... before one is permitted tor receive baptism.


AND the ever constant demand from the very same folks that rules are wrong, to be condemned and make one "religious" UNLESS SCRIPTURE STATES them.


So we've been waiting. For 70 pages now. Can't accuse us of being impatient!

"Thou mayest NOT baptize under under the age of X, thou must withhold baptism until they FIRST attaineth unto that age"
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any who hath not previously wept bitterly in repentance and must withhold it until such"
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any who hath not previously proven their faith and proclaimeth unto all, "I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord" and must withhold it otherwise."
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any until such a person hath given unto all their consent for such and must withhold it otherwise."
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any unless it be proven they have good hearing and art not deaf and must withhold it otherwise."
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any unless and until they first proveth that they are not righteous or innocent but rather art a horrible sinner, and must withhold it otherwise."
You know, something like that. SCRIPTURE STATING THE RULE.


Because the ever constant demand from the very same folks that rules are wrong, to be condemned and make one "religious" UNLESS SCRIPTURE STATES them.




I think there are likely two possibilities:


1. NONE of these plethora of rules, rules, rules, rules, rules - the very growing list of them - are actually are stated in Scripture. Ergo, perhaps we should take your clear advise: consider them wrong, condemn them and regard the proponents as "religious."

2. More patience is needed. 70 pages has just not been adequate time for all these rule makers to quote the verses where SCRIPTURE STATES this plethora of rules they promote and demand and mandate. Patience is a virtue, after all. And we're all busy. But if this is the case, I think it would be nice (and maybe respectful of OUR time) if they would give us some estimate of when these many, many, many verses of BAPTISM RULES as SCRIPTURE STATES might be forthcoming.




Thank you.


- Josiah

 

[Alithis]

GREAT! So you are repudiating all your posts, all your rules you've been pushing and promoting for 69 pages.....

Rule 1: " MUST first attained the age of X - not an infant" - REPUDIATED! Dropped! Infant baptism is now just fine!

Rule 2: "MUST first repent!" REPUDIATED! Dropped. No more rule about first repenting.

Rule 3: " MUST first recite that 'Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior!" REPUDIATED! Dropped. No more any rule about believing first.

Rule 4: "MUST first give their consent!" REPUDIATED! Dropped! No more rule about first consenting!

Rule 5: "MUST be a sinner because righteous people are forbidden!" REPUDIATED! Dropped. No more rule about having to be a sinner.



Well, there goes every one of your posts in these 69 pages.....


Glad to see you repudiating all of it.





.

what a load of fiddle faddle - get back to the word of God and conform to it and stop trying to make the word of God conform to your traditions

 

[Alithis]

Nice questions. But you insist that rules are wrong, bad, make one "religious" UNLESS SCRIPTURE STATES them.

Of for 70 pages now, you and a couple of others have made and promoted and defended a WHOLE PLETHORA of rules!
Rules, rules, rules, rules, rules, rules, rules.
I've lost count of them ALL!


GOTTA be X years old before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA weep X buckets of tears in repentances before one may be permitted to be baptized
GOTTA correctly recite the sinner's prayer and state outloud, "Jesus is my Lord and Savior" before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA get the recipients formal consent before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA have proof they are a sinner and not righteous before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA prove they can hear and are not deaf before one may be permitted to be baptized.

And that's just SOME of the rules that have been made just in this thread!
Rules, rules, rules, rules, rules, rules!
New ones keep popping up! Then removed! Then new ones produced...
Rules, rules, rules, rules, rules, rules!
Gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta..... rules, rules, rules, rules... before one is permitted tor receive baptism.


AND the ever constant demand from the very same folks that rules are wrong, to be condemned and make one "religious" UNLESS SCRIPTURE STATES them.


So we've been waiting. For 70 pages now. Can't accuse us of being impatient!

"Thou mayest NOT baptize under under the age of X, thou must withhold baptism until they FIRST attaineth unto that age"
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any who hath not previously wept bitterly in repentance and must withhold it until such"
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any who hath not previously proven their faith and proclaimeth unto all, "I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord" and must withhold it otherwise."
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any until such a person hath given unto all their consent for such and must withhold it otherwise."
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any unless it be proven they have good hearing and art not deaf and must withhold it otherwise."
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any unless and until they first proveth that they are not righteous or innocent but rather art a horrible sinner, and must withhold it otherwise."
You know, something like that. SCRIPTURE STATING THE RULE.


Because the ever constant demand from the very same folks that rules are wrong, to be condemned and make one "religious" UNLESS SCRIPTURE STATES them.




I think there are likely two possibilities:


1. NONE of these plethora of rules, rules, rules, rules, rules - the very growing list of them - are actually are stated in Scripture. Ergo, perhaps we should take your clear advise: consider them wrong, condemn them and regard the proponents as "religious."

2. More patience is needed. 70 pages has just not been adequate time for all these rule makers to quote the verses where SCRIPTURE STATES this plethora of rules they promote and demand and mandate. Patience is a virtue, after all. And we're all busy. But if this is the case, I think it would be nice (and maybe respectful of OUR time) if they would give us some estimate of when these many, many, many verses of BAPTISM RULES as SCRIPTURE STATES might be forthcoming.




Thank you.


- Josiah

one thing is obvious here .. the word of god says one thing

and you say another ..you attempt to impose your own rules .

i'l stick to the word of God thanks all the same .

after peter preached and those who heard him said .. what shall we do .. peter then told them the correct response to the Gospel .. he said "repent and be baptised for the remission of sin and you will receive the Holy Ghost " - that what it says ..so thats what we wil do .

so all your many posts have not change the word of God one iota ,nor ever will .

 

[Josiah]

Nice questions. But you insist that rules are wrong, bad, make one "religious" UNLESS SCRIPTURE STATES them.

Of for 70 pages now, you and a couple of others have made and promoted and defended a WHOLE PLETHORA of rules!
Rules, rules, rules, rules, rules, rules, rules.
I've lost count of them ALL!


GOTTA be X years old before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA weep X buckets of tears in repentances before one may be permitted to be baptized
GOTTA correctly recite the sinner's prayer and state outloud, "Jesus is my Lord and Savior" before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA get the recipients formal consent before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA have proof they are a sinner and not righteous before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA prove they can hear and are not deaf before one may be permitted to be baptized.

And that's just SOME of the rules that have been made just in this thread!
Rules, rules, rules, rules, rules, rules!
New ones keep popping up! Then removed! Then new ones produced...
Rules, rules, rules, rules, rules, rules!
Gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta..... rules, rules, rules, rules... before one is permitted tor receive baptism.


AND the ever constant demand from the very same folks that rules are wrong, to be condemned and make one "religious" UNLESS SCRIPTURE STATES them.


So we've been waiting. For 70 pages now. Can't accuse us of being impatient!

"Thou mayest NOT baptize under under the age of X, thou must withhold baptism until they FIRST attaineth unto that age"
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any who hath not previously wept bitterly in repentance and must withhold it until such"
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any who hath not previously proven their faith and proclaimeth unto all, "I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord" and must withhold it otherwise."
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any until such a person hath given unto all their consent for such and must withhold it otherwise."
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any unless it be proven they have good hearing and art not deaf and must withhold it otherwise."
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any unless and until they first proveth that they are not righteous or innocent but rather art a horrible sinner, and must withhold it otherwise."
You know, something like that. SCRIPTURE STATING THE RULE.


Because the ever constant demand from the very same folks that rules are wrong, to be condemned and make one "religious" UNLESS SCRIPTURE STATES them.




I think there are likely two possibilities:


1. NONE of these plethora of rules, rules, rules, rules, rules - the very growing list of them - are actually are stated in Scripture. Ergo, perhaps we should take your clear advise: consider them wrong, condemn them and regard the proponents as "religious."

2. More patience is needed. 70 pages has just not been adequate time for all these rule makers to quote the verses where SCRIPTURE STATES this plethora of rules they promote and demand and mandate. Patience is a virtue, after all. And we're all busy. But if this is the case, I think it would be nice (and maybe respectful of OUR time) if they would give us some estimate of when these many, many, many verses of BAPTISM RULES as SCRIPTURE STATES might be forthcoming.




Thank you.


- Josiah

ne thing is obvious here .. the word of god says one thing

We're waiting for you to quote the Scriptures STATING the long, long, long, ever-growing list of baptism rules you've been mandating.

When might you get around to that? Can you give us an estimate?

so all your many posts have not change the word of God one iota .

I'm not the one creating this ever lengthening list of baptism rules. You are.

And so far, not one of your plethora of baptism rules has been shown to be repeated in Scripture, to be what "SCRIPTURE STATES." No attempt yet has even been made (but we ARE trying to be patient), not even for one of the long, long list of baptism rules you keep coming up with.




.

 

[Full O Beans]

Refusing to hear and heed the word of God in this matter is what prolongs this thread.

 

[Alithis]

We're waiting for you to quote the Scriptures STATING the long, long, long, ever-growing list of baptism rules you've been mandating.

When might you get around to that? Can you give us an estimate?






I'm not the one creating this ever lengthening list of baptism rules. You are.

And so far, not one of your plethora of baptism rules has been shown to be repeated in Scripture, to be what "SCRIPTURE STATES." No attempt yet has even been made (but we ARE trying to be patient), not even for one of the long, long list of baptism rules you keep coming up with.




.

i haven't stated any rules .. god has ..im saying ..im sticking to what Goid has stated -you should too

 

[Alithis]

Refusing to hear and heed the word of God in this matter is what prolongs this thread.

yeah well,, perhaps some think if the oppose thier denomination stance they wil lode thier salvation becaseu you have to belong to that denomination to get saved -some erroneously think that .
so they are loyal beyond rational thinking .

 

[Full O Beans]

yeah well,, perhaps some think if the oppose thier denomination stance they wil lode thier salvation becaseu you have to belong to that denomination to get saved -some erroneously think that .
so they are loyal beyond rational thinking .

And some think that if they bold and enlarge their font and add a little colour, that somehow the deception changes to truth. What it is is indoctrination. Only Holy Spirit can come in with the light of Jesus and shine on the lies, revealing the truth of the matter, and like a fresh wind, blow out the cobwebs of false teaching.

Praying!

 

[Josiah]

i haven't stated any rules .. god has

It's been stressed that the only rules that matter are those STATED IN SCRIPTURE. All others that aren't so stated are therefore, "wrong, condemnable and makes the person religious."

So, it's really pretty easy. Take just a few of the long, long, long ever-growing list of baptism rules you and other anti-paedobaptism folks here have demanded.

GOTTA be X years old before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA weep X buckets of tears in repentances before one may be permitted to be baptized
GOTTA correctly recite the sinner's prayer and state outloud, "Jesus is my Lord and Savior" before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA get the recipients formal consent before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA have proof they are a sinner and not righteous before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA prove they can hear and are not deaf before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA prove that the recipient is aware of X before such a one may be permitted to be baptized.

Just a few, just a handful of the plethora of baptism rules that have demanded just in this thread. There's more that have been demanded, but let's just go with those baptism rules.

Now, where does SCRIPTURE STATE each of those? Because if Scirpture doesn't specifically STATE those rules, then, according to you, we are mandated to regard them as false, condemnable and making the rule-maker "religious."
Just quote the verse(s) for just these of the plethora of baptism rules that have been mandated here:
"Thou mayest NOT baptize under under the age of X, thou must withhold baptism until they FIRST attaineth unto that age"
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any who hath not previously wept bitterly in repentance and must withhold it until such"
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any who hath not previously proven their faith and proclaimeth unto all, "I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord" and must withhold it otherwise."
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any until such a person hath given unto all their consent for such and must withhold it otherwise."
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any unless it be proven they have good hearing and art not deaf and must withhold it otherwise."
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any unless and until they first proveth that they are not righteous or innocent but rather art a horrible sinner, and must withhold it otherwise."
You know, something like that. SCRIPTURE STATING THE RULE.

It's been how many pages now? Perhaps you need more time. Can you tell us about how much more time you might need before you quote the verse(s) STATING these specific BAPTISM RULES?



Thank you.


- Josiah