Baptism and Limited Atonement

[atpollard]

The statement:

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath proven they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died?"

has been claimed to be a ‘dogma’ of the 16th Century Anabaptists that is embraced by modern Baptists (non-Padeobaptists).

My response is ... I have no idea what Josiah is talking about.

Here is the position on Baptism from (you guessed it) the Southern Baptist Faith and Message 2000, which is what THIS Particular Baptist believes:

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.​

There is NOTHING in there that even suggests a link between Baptism and Limited Atonement.
So I guess that I am finished with the third of Josiah’s three Anabaptist dogmas. There is nothing more that I have to say.

 

[Josiah]

The statement:

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath proven they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died?"

Was it you or MennoSota who made that insistence? The point that baptism is for the elect? That we can only baptize those for whom Jesus died (as evidence by they choosing Jesus as their Savior). I think it was you. Do I need to go over the MANY posts you have on baptism here? I probably can't do that, but I remember well the foundational point: that baptism isn't allowed where it is not evidence they are among the ones Jesus died for.


Now, if you think it is good and right to baptize one for whom there is no indication that Jesus died for them, then it seems you never said that (or perhaps I misunderstood).

 

[atpollard]

Was it you or MennoSota who made that insistence? The point that baptism is for the elect? That we can only baptize those for whom Jesus died (as evidence by they choosing Jesus as their Savior). I think it was you. Do I need to go over the MANY posts you have on baptism here? I probably can't do that, but I remember well the foundational point: that baptism isn't allowed where it is not evidence they are among the ones Jesus died for.

Now, if you think it is good and right to baptize one for whom there is no indication that Jesus died for them, then it seems you never said that (or perhaps I misunderstood).

I went looking for your oft repeated list of 16th Century wackadoodle Anabaptist dogmas that MennoSota and I were repeatedly asked to provide verses that stated and found it among one of them. If there was a different third Anabaptist Dogma after “minimum age of X” and “must FIRST believe”, then just point it out and I will address that instead. I was not unwilling to discuss all of them, I was just unwilling to discuss all three points at once with a constant jumping between the points. As I have KEPT TELLING YOU, I am a Credobaptist, so for me it is all about the person that is being baptized claiming “I believe” ... “Believers Baptism” is for “Believers”, not for “possible future believers”.

 

[Josiah]

I went looking for your oft repeated list of 16th Century wackadoodle Anabaptist dogmas that MennoSota and I were repeatedly asked to provide verses that stated and found it among one of them. If there was a different third Anabaptist Dogma after “minimum age of X” and “must FIRST believe”, then just point it out and I will address that instead. I was not unwilling to discuss all of them, I was just unwilling to discuss all three points at once with a constant jumping between the points. As I have KEPT TELLING YOU, I am a Credobaptist, so for me it is all about the person that is being baptized claiming “I believe” ... “Believers Baptism” is for “Believers”, not for “possible future believers”.

There are 3 main Anabaptist dogmatic inventions, each from the late 16th Century. They are:

Anti-Paedobaptism: Anti (against, forbidden) Paedo (young person, can mean any under 20 but more typically under 13) Baptism. There is a dogmatic, minimum age that must be attained before the prohibition to baptism is lifted and thus one may be baptized. It's about an AGE requirement/limitation. Sometimes this is identified as the "age of accountability." Other baptisms are heretical, invalid, not allowed.

Credobaptism: Credo (I believe) Baptism There is a dogmatic mandate that FIRST in chronological time, one must give adequate public indication that one has previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. It's about time, chronology, sequence... and a dogmatic mandate that one must give this evidence of choice before the prohibition to baptize is lifted. Other baptisms are heretical, invalid, not allowed.

Immersion Baptism: The dogma that there is a biblical mandate that the application of water baptism must entirely and completely cover the entire body of the recipient. It's amount the quantity of water involved. Other baptisms are heretical, invalid, wrong and not permitted.


Now, there are other common Baptist baptism dogmas but those are the 3 we're mostly discussed here.

Anabaptist/Baptist is an EXTREMELY broad and diverse movement. "Baptists" may have virtually NOTHING else in common but these baptism dogmas.... they they don't all spin them identically or apply them exactly the same. And some combine Anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism into one dogma. And I personally know of a baptist church that does not require immersion, they DO consider other modes just as valid, it's just they choose to use immersion. But those are the dogmas. And they tend to be THE defining, discriptive dogmas of that movement.


Now, I'm not sure what that has to do with the opening post.... or my reply to it.... or why the opening poster would not be familiar with these teachings.

 

[Andrew]

i believe that newborns have no clue of what's going on other than they love milk and hate teeth
Oops, wrong thread.. (Edited)

 

[MennoSota]

There are 3 main Anabaptist dogmatic inventions, each from the late 16th Century. They are:

Anti-Paedobaptism: Anti (against, forbidden) Paedo (young person, can mean any under 20 but more typically under 13) Baptism. There is a dogmatic, minimum age that must be attained before the prohibition to baptism is lifted and thus one may be baptized. It's about an AGE requirement/limitation. Sometimes this is identified as the "age of accountability." Other baptisms are heretical, invalid, not allowed.

Credobaptism: Credo (I believe) Baptism There is a dogmatic mandate that FIRST in chronological time, one must give adequate public indication that one has previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. It's about time, chronology, sequence... and a dogmatic mandate that one must give this evidence of choice before the prohibition to baptize is lifted. Other baptisms are heretical, invalid, not allowed.

Immersion Baptism: The dogma that there is a biblical mandate that the application of water baptism must entirely and completely cover the entire body of the recipient. It's amount the quantity of water involved. Other baptisms are heretical, invalid, wrong and not permitted.


Now, there are other common Baptist baptism dogmas but those are the 3 we're mostly discussed here.

Anabaptist/Baptist is an EXTREMELY broad and diverse movement. "Baptists" may have virtually NOTHING else in common but these baptism dogmas.... they they don't all spin them identically or apply them exactly the same. And some combine Anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism into one dogma. And I personally know of a baptist church that does not require immersion, they DO consider other modes just as valid, it's just they choose to use immersion. But those are the dogmas. And they tend to be THE defining, discriptive dogmas of that movement.


Now, I'm not sure what that has to do with the opening post.... or my reply to it.... or why the opening poster would not be familiar with these teachings.

And this has to do with Baptism and Limited Atonement, how???

 

[Josiah]

And this has to do with Baptism and Limited Atonement, how???

atpollard seemed unaware of baptist views on baptism.

I'm NOT the one who claimed that we can't baptize one for whom there is no evidence that Jesus died for them. That's NOT my view. And I don't think it's a Baptist one (at least not that I've read). It was a claim made in one of the many Baptism threads some time back. Perhaps I'm in error on that. It's not my thread.... I simply raised a lot of prohibitions and noted they are not ones taught anywhere in the Bible. Perhaps you agree

 

[MennoSota]

atpollard seemed unaware of baptist views on baptism.

I'm NOT the one who claimed that we can't baptize one for whom there is no evidence that Jesus died for them. That's NOT my view. And I don't think it's a Baptist one (at least not that I've read). It was a claim made in one of the many Baptism threads some time back. Perhaps I'm in error on that. It's not my thread.... I simply raised a lot of prohibitions and noted they are not ones taught anywhere in the Bible. Perhaps you agree

So your comments have nothing to do with Baptism and Limited Atonement. Why post when you have no intention to stay on topic?
How does the body of Christ discern who it is that has been given the gift of faith? How can we discern if a person is elect?
If Christ's atonement is only effective to save those elected to receive faith, should baptism be given to those who have no faith?

 

[Andrew]

atpollard seemed unaware of baptist views on baptism.

I'm NOT the one who claimed that we can't baptize one for whom there is no evidence that Jesus died for them. That's NOT my view. And I don't think it's a Baptist one (at least not that I've read). It was a claim made in one of the many Baptism threads some time back. Perhaps I'm in error on that. It's not my thread.... I simply raised a lot of prohibitions and noted they are not ones taught anywhere in the Bible. Perhaps you agree

The dead know nothing of this world, why do you insist that we baptise everyone "under the sun" with mere sprinkles??
It has no effect, how could it?
Many of the "sprinkled" have grown up atheist anyway so what good is it to 'sprinkle' a non believer?
Is it possible that maybe our spreading of the Word is how we baptise creatures?
Isn't the Word itself enough to draw in believers under a certain name?
I believe in 'believers baptism' as opposed to "hey you! take this!"...
I honestly see no effect in "splishy splashing" water over someone who has no idea what time of day it is nor can speak...

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved"
Romans 10:9-13

Note: This scripture never states "unbaptised babies go to the lake of fire"

2 cents

Edit:
"Doh! Wrong thread again!"