Credobaptism

[atpollard]

Since the topic on “the undisclosed age of X” was so much fun, I thought it would be GREAT to start one on Credobaptism next.

CREDOBAPTISM: from the Latin word "credo" meaning 'creed' or 'I believe'. Credobaptism is the practice of baptizing only those who are able to make a profession of faith.

Baptism signifies a believer’s union with Christ, by grace through faith, and all the benefits that result from that union. It testifies and announces that one has entered into the realities of the new covenant and as such, has experienced regeneration, the gift and down-payment of the Spirit, and the forgiveness of sin. It graphically signifies that a believer is now a member of the body of Christ (Eph. 4:22-25). It is our defining mark of belonging as well as a demarcation from the world. It signifies entry into the eschatological order of the new creation—that which our Lord Jesus Christ has ushered in. In all of these ways, baptism is a beautiful God-given rite which displays, proclaims, and testifies to the reality of the gospel.
- Stephen Wellum, PhD. (Professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)​

 

[atpollard]

Scriptural Instructions for Baptism:

Baptism is not like dipping cattle in a pool of insecticide. One does not round up the entire community and drive them through the water for a “just in case” baptism of sheep, goats, and wolves. Baptism is for those under the New Covenant, and not for those who belong to the world and reject Christ.

Let us examine the first Christian Baptism (after Jesus’ ascension) for Apostolic guidelines on baptism.

[Acts 2:36-39]
36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified."
37 Now when they heard [this,] they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"
38 Peter [said] to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”​

The Apostle Peter was speaking under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, so we can assume that he got a few things right about evangelism and repentance and baptism.

In Acts 2:36 we see Peter starting out informing people who Jesus is.

In Acts 2:37 we see the people “pierced to the heart”.

In Acts 2:38 Peter instructs them to “repent”. I am not an expert on Greek grammar, but the translators who are such experts chose to insert a coma after the word ‘repent’ setting it off as a command distinct from the following instructions to “get baptized”. These double commands to repent and be baptized come with the assurance of receipt of the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:39 speaks of “the promise” being for “you” and “your children” and “all who are far off”. So what is THE PROMISE? The promise cannot be simply ‘salvation’ because experience tells us that one person repenting and being baptized and gaining the Holy Spirit does not mean that all of their children and grandchildren and great grandchildren are born already saved and indwelt with the Holy Spirit. The PROMISE is the availability of the grace that Peter just related to these people. Their children and grandchildren and future unborn generation, plus the people living in Europe and the Americas and Africa and Asia and Australia that would someday be born would have the same opportunity as they did to HEAR about Jesus the Christ, and be offered a chance to REPENT of their sins, and be commanded to BE BAPTIZED so that they too could receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Since Peter was operating under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the Promise of Salvation presented in Acts 2 is for them, their children and ALL WHO ARE FAR OFF, then it is more than a “one time” example, it is a promise for us. We are part of ALL who are far off. So, too, our children are part of ALL WHO ARE FAR OFF and the promise of God delivered by Peter is for us and them.

So what was that promise, what example did Peter set ... teach them who Jesus is, call them to repent and be baptized.
(This is what scripture both commands and reveals.)

 

[MoreCoffee]

Since the topic on “the undisclosed age of X” was so much fun, I thought it would be GREAT to start one on Credobaptism next.

I can't help but think that you've become a glutton for punishment by relating this thread to the age x thread

CREDOBAPTISM: from the Latin word "credo" meaning 'creed' or 'I believe'. Credobaptism is the practice of baptizing only those who are able to make a profession of faith.

Baptism signifies a believer’s union with Christ, by grace through faith, and all the benefits that result from that union. It testifies and announces that one has entered into the realities of the new covenant and as such, has experienced regeneration, the gift and down-payment of the Spirit, and the forgiveness of sin. It graphically signifies that a believer is now a member of the body of Christ (Eph. 4:22-25). It is our defining mark of belonging as well as a demarcation from the world. It signifies entry into the eschatological order of the new creation—that which our Lord Jesus Christ has ushered in. In all of these ways, baptism is a beautiful God-given rite which displays, proclaims, and testifies to the reality of the gospel.
- Stephen Wellum, PhD. (Professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)​

What passages in holy scripture teach that baptism signifies union with Christ and testifies and announces entry into the realities of the new covenant?

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]



CREDOBAPTISM: The dogma that we are forbidden to baptize any unless they have first in chronological time stated that they have chosen Jesus as their personal savior, only then is the prohibition of baptism lifted. THAT is the dogma. You are confusing Anti-Paedobaptism (which you claim you don't accept) with Credobaptism, it's Ant-Paedobaptism that demands that one be of an AGE when they can do certain things (this flowing from synergism); Credobaptism does NOT say one is old enough to be ABLE to do something but rather that one in chronological time as previously DONE something.


SO, you have not one Scripture that states the mandate that FIRST in chronological time one must prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, then after that, the prohibition to baptism is lifted and such (and ONLY such) may be baptized. You have not one verse that says that. Okay, no Scripture (we agree there). So.... what DO you have?


In the other thread, you stated that you disagree with the Baptist apologetic that the word "kai" means "in chronological order or sequence" - and thus you won't use that apologetic in this thread since you disagree with it. And you also stated that you disagree with the other Baptist apologetic for this, that we are limited to doing what we see illustrated as done in the Bible. Since you stated your rejection of both of the apologetics for this dogma of Credobaptism, I'm curious to see what you are going to invent. Since "and" in Scripture has NOTHING to do with this....and what was DONE and not done has nothing to do with this.... since you reject both of the Baptist apologetical points, what DO you have that no Baptist in 400+ years has thought of? You can't argue that the Early Church taught and followed this.... you can't point to any Council..... Hum.



.




.

 

[Albion]

atpollard...


SO, you have not one Scripture that states the mandate that FIRST in chronological time one must prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, then after that, the prohibition to baptism is lifted and such (and ONLY such) may be baptized. You have not one verse that says that.

Exactly. And that was the point I made to him also.

However, I now think he is incapable of understanding the point, probably because the Anabaptist arguments have been so long internalized. At first I thought he was merely made uncomfortable by it, which, if true, might account for all the dodging and changing the subject.

We are apparently never going to be able to get both sides to meet the issue head on.

 

[Josiah]

Exactly. And that was the point I made to him also.

However, I now think he is incapable of understanding the point, probably because the Anabaptist arguments have been so long internalized. At first I thought he was merely made uncomfortable by it, which, if true, might account for all the dodging and changing the subject.

We are apparently never going to be able to get both sides to meet the issue head on.

Here's the thing, my friend....


1. Baptists have two and only two apologetics for Credobaptism. And atpollard is on record saying he rejects them both.

2. The Anabaptists who invented this dogma he echos never claimed that Scripture teaches this and ever claimed anyone believed or followed this before them. It flows from their radical synergism: Since those under a certain age CANNOT do their part in the salvation of themselves, thus God doesn't old them accountable for anything (I wonder why they can thus die?) and the ordinances of Scripture just don't apply (I wonder why they thus teach them?). Since they CANNOT DO what God requires each does (or He is impotent), He exempts them and we can't baptize them (but evidently we can teach them). THING IS - he's a monergist!!!!! I will never - ever - understand how a Monergist in justification can depend on synergism, all the "babies CANNOT...babies CANNOT? How does this mantra "jibe" with Total Depravity and Irresistable Grace of TULIP? Doesn't he know the Anabaptists were ENEMIES of Calvinism and monergism? Arthur TRIES to not use the synergist apologetics for Baptism (whereas MennoSota often does) but without that synergistic theology, this doesn't make sense. So he can't use that. And he can't use the two Baptist apologetics (that MennoSota parrots perfectly) since he's on record stating he rejects them. He certainly can't use history or tradition. What's left? He needs to invent something no Baptist has yet to think of?

 

[Albion]

Here's the thing, my friend....


1. Baptists have two and only two apologetics for Credobaptism. And atpollard is on record saying he rejects them both.

Well, he also insists that he is a Credobaptist himself, although he is on record as being willing to baptize people who are not old enough to know what a creed is or to have a conversion experience. That being the case, are you sure that what you explain below has a chance of getting through?

2. The Anabaptists who invented this dogma he echos never claimed that Scripture teaches this and ever claimed anyone believed or followed this before them. It flows from their radical synergism: Since those under a certain age CANNOT do their part in the salvation of themselves, thus God doesn't old them accountable for anything (I wonder why they can thus die?) and the ordinances of Scripture just don't apply (I wonder why they thus teach them?). Since they CANNOT DO what God requires each does (or He is impotent), He exempts them and we can't baptize them (but evidently we can teach them). THING IS - he's a monergist!!!!! I will never - ever - understand how a Monergist in justification can depend on synergism, all the "babies CANNOT...babies CANNOT? How does this mantra "jibe" with Total Depravity and Irresistable Grace of TULIP? Doesn't he know the Anabaptists were ENEMIES of Calvinism and monergism? Arthur TRIES to not use the synergist apologetics for Baptism (whereas MennoSota often does) but without that synergistic theology, this doesn't make sense. So he can't use that. And he can't use the two Baptist apologetics (that MennoSota parrots perfectly) since he's on record stating he rejects them. He certainly can't use history or tradition. What's left? He needs to invent something no Baptist has yet to think of?

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION] So.... what DO you have?

For a response, see post #2 and feel free to respond to Scripture and/or my exegesis if you so desire.

 

[atpollard]

Exactly. And that was the point I made to him also.

For a response, see post #2 and feel free to respond to Scripture and/or my exegesis if you so desire.

 

[atpollard]

... who are not old enough to know what a creed is or to have a conversion experience.

Both R.C. Sproul and MennoSota have refuted you with their personal testimony. It now falls to you to explain why two people who oppose padeobaptism would lie and make such a false claim.

 

[atpollard]

I can't help but think that you've become a glutton for punishment by relating this thread to the age x thread

Was there ever any real chance that the same old faces would not show up to repeat the same old demands for the same THREE arguments from the 16th Century Anabaptists?

I have ZERO expectations of any real progress on that front, but at least I get to address each of the three “demands” one at a time ... which is what I have wanted from the beginning.

[Your other question is a great one and I want to respond when I have time to give it more than a quick response.]

 

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]



CREDOBAPTISM: The dogma that we are forbidden to baptize any unless they have first in chronological time stated that they have chosen Jesus as their personal savior, only then is the prohibition of baptism lifted. THAT is the dogma. You are confusing Anti-Paedobaptism (which you claim you don't accept) with Credobaptism, it's Ant-Paedobaptism that demands that one be of an AGE when they can do certain things (this flowing from synergism); Credobaptism does NOT say one is old enough to be ABLE to do something but rather that one in chronological time as previously DONE something.


SO, you have not one Scripture that states the mandate that FIRST in chronological time one must prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, then after that, the prohibition to baptism is lifted and such (and ONLY such) may be baptized. You have not one verse that says that. Okay, no Scripture (we agree there). So.... what DO you have?


In the other thread, you stated that you disagree with the Baptist apologetic that the word "kai" means "in chronological order or sequence" - and thus you won't use that apologetic in this thread since you disagree with it. And you also stated that you disagree with the other Baptist apologetic for this, that we are limited to doing what we see illustrated as done in the Bible. Since you stated your rejection of both of the apologetics for this dogma of Credobaptism, I'm curious to see what you are going to invent. Since "and" in Scripture has NOTHING to do with this....and what was DONE and not done has nothing to do with this.... since you reject both of the Baptist apologetical points, what DO you have that no Baptist in 400+ years has thought of? You can't argue that the Early Church taught and followed this.... you can't point to any Council..... Hum.



.




.

Let's correct your definition with the one atpollard used from Southern Theological Seminary as it is what atpollard decrees.

CREDOBAPTISM: from the Latin word "credo" meaning 'creed' or 'I believe'. Credobaptism is the practice of baptizing only those who are able to make a profession of faith.

Baptism signifies a believer’s union with Christ, by grace through faith, and all the benefits that result from that union. It testifies and announces that one has entered into the realities of the new covenant and as such, has experienced regeneration, the gift and down-payment of the Spirit, and the forgiveness of sin. It graphically signifies that a believer is now a member of the body of Christ (Eph. 4:22-25). It is our defining mark of belonging as well as a demarcation from the world. It signifies entry into the eschatological order of the new creation—that which our Lord Jesus Christ has ushered in. In all of these ways, baptism is a beautiful God-given rite which displays, proclaims, and testifies to the reality of the gospel.

- Stephen Wellum, PhD. (Professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)

 

[MoreCoffee]

Was there ever any real chance that the same old faces would not show up to repeat the same old demands for the same THREE arguments from the 16th Century Anabaptists?

I have ZERO expectations of any real progress on that front, but at least I get to address each of the three “demands” one at a time ... which is what I have wanted from the beginning.

[Your other question is a great one and I want to respond when I have time to give it more than a quick response.]

My first comment was not a question but I appreciate your reply and I see the humour of the response.

Good fortune with the thread and the plan that you have.

I really do have sympathy for you when dealing with these Anabaptist related allegations.

 

[MennoSota]

Here's the thing, my friend....


1. Baptists have two and only two apologetics for Credobaptism. And atpollard is on record saying he rejects them both.

2. The Anabaptists who invented this dogma he echos never claimed that Scripture teaches this and ever claimed anyone believed or followed this before them. It flows from their radical synergism: Since those under a certain age CANNOT do their part in the salvation of themselves, thus God doesn't old them accountable for anything (I wonder why they can thus die?) and the ordinances of Scripture just don't apply (I wonder why they thus teach them?). Since they CANNOT DO what God requires each does (or He is impotent), He exempts them and we can't baptize them (but evidently we can teach them). THING IS - he's a monergist!!!!! I will never - ever - understand how a Monergist in justification can depend on synergism, all the "babies CANNOT...babies CANNOT? How does this mantra "jibe" with Total Depravity and Irresistable Grace of TULIP? Doesn't he know the Anabaptists were ENEMIES of Calvinism and monergism? Arthur TRIES to not use the synergist apologetics for Baptism (whereas MennoSota often does) but without that synergistic theology, this doesn't make sense. So he can't use that. And he can't use the two Baptist apologetics (that MennoSota parrots perfectly) since he's on record stating he rejects them. He certainly can't use history or tradition. What's left? He needs to invent something no Baptist has yet to think of?

There is nothing connecting baptism of believers to synergism or monergism. For you to try make a connection is horribly disingenuous of you.
Truth is that all EOC, Roman Church, Anglican and Lutheran Churches are synergists. Even you, though you claim otherwise, are a synergist. So, trying to tie baptism to either synergism or monergism is just foolish. End of discussion. Go back to the real topic.
It is your tactic to avoid the Bible in this discussion. You argue from history of the church and essentially claim that the oldest man-made tradition thus equals the correct man-made tradition. You have three verses where you force a presupposition upon the word "household." That's it. Nothing more upon which to hang your dogma.
Now, credobaptism has all the verses be regarding baptism upon which we hang our dogma. We rely upon scripture, not longest tradition as our hermanetical reason for baptizing believers only.
The Reformation is a Godsend to mankind. It did not stop when Martin Luther died. It is constantly battling against heresies that enter the body of Christ. Over 500 years of diligent call back to the doctrines of the Apostles and Christ Jesus and this reform will keep going as false doctrines and dogmas persist to try place man at the center of salvation and remove God from his Sovereign throne.
Paedobaptism is one of those dogmas that attempt to take God off his throne and replace his saving grace with the works of infant baptism for salvation. It may be one of the earliest forms of synergism in the church.

 

[Josiah]

credobaptism has all the verses be regarding baptism upon which we hang our dogma. We rely upon scripture

GREAT! Be the first baptist in over 400 years to quote the verse that states, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they previously in chronological time hath professed their acceptance of Jesus as their personal Savior; elsewise, the prohibition to baptism stands and must not be allowed."

When you find the verse, let us know. And make yourself famous for being the first to find it.




.

 

[Albion]

Both R.C. Sproul and MennoSota have refuted you with their personal testimony. It now falls to you to explain why two people who oppose padeobaptism would lie and make such a false claim.

Hmm. R.C. Sproul or MennoSota. Which one to go by??? But just imagine the stature of the people I could refer to in support of my position! And 2000 years of Christian history to choose from.

Well, how about this--you give a coherent defense against what you don't care for in my statement? That would be a good place to start.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]

CREDOBAPTISM: from the Latin word "credo" meaning 'creed' or 'I believe'. Credobaptism is the practice of baptizing only those who are able to make a profession of faith.

.... so whether they DO or do NOT is irrelevant. A 32 year old Muslim may be baptized because he is ABLE to make a profession of faith, he just didn't (at least not in Jesus).


Hummm.... interesting reinvention of your baptist dogma... but okay... I can run with that.
I personally think you are confusing Anti-Paedobaptism with Credobaptism (two DIFFERENT inventions of those radical synergistic Anabaptists), but if that's the definition for this thread, I will abide.

Does the opening poster also mandate this definition of the Dogma (post 17)? I hold the dogma is this: That baptism must be proceeded by a statement that one has previously chosen Jesus as their Savior; there must PREVIOUSLY in chronological time, be such a statement. Obviously, you objected and note that it's actually all about whether one has the ABILITY to make or not make some statement of personal faith.


So quote the verse, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they are OLD ENOUGH to make a profession of faith, whether that be in Satan or Muhammed or kristna or the one they see in the mirror, doesn't matter, even if they profess faith in NOTHING but if they are ABLE to, then after that, they may be baptized."




.

 

[MennoSota]

.... so whether they DO or do NOT is irrelevant. A 32 year old Muslim may be baptized because he is ABLE to make a profession of faith, he just didn't (at least not in Jesus).


Hummm.... interesting reinvention of your baptist dogma... but okay... I can run with that.
I personally think you are confusing Anti-Paedobaptism with Credobaptism (two DIFFERENT inventions of those radical synergistic Anabaptists), but if that's the definition for this thread, I will abide.
Does the opening poster also mandate this definition of the Dogma?


So quote the verse, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they are OLD ENOUGH to make a profession of faith, whether that be in Satan or Muhammed or kristna or the one they see in the mirror, doesn't matter, even if they profess faith in NOTHING but if they are ABLE to, then after that, they may be baptized."

Of course you ignore context...again...
What confession of faith do we see in scripture, Josiah? Do we see the Apostles baptizing people in Ephesus because they confessed faith in Diana?
Do you really think there is NO discernment involved when a person is baptized?
Let us take a look at the first Gentiles coming to faith and see if discernment was called for.
Acts 10:34-48 So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God.
Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

Josiah, I love your dogged desire to baptize all the unbelieving people in the world. The community in which you live must see you coming and run for cover as you sprinkle water all over in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Josiah]

Acts 10:34-48

.... nowhere states,

"Thou canst NOT baptize any until they are physically ABLE to make some profession of faith (whether they do or not.); only after they are ABLE is the prohibition of baptism lifted."

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they first in chronological time hath proven that they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, after that is completed, THEN they may be baptized."

"Thou canst NOT do anything that is not illustrated as done in the Bible so if you post on the internet you are going to... well... not heaven."




.

 

[MennoSota]

GREAT! Be the first baptist in over 400 years to quote the verse that states, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they previously in chronological time hath professed their acceptance of Jesus as their personal Savior; elsewise, the prohibition to baptism stands and must not be allowed."

When you find the verse, let us know. And make yourself famous for being the first to find it.




.

Again, this demand is an utterly foolish demand that I have addressed already.
Since Zero infants were baptized by the Apostles, they were not compelled by God to write a command forbidding it...just as they were not compelled by God to forbid Joseph Smith from using a seer stone to translate golden tablets given to him by the angel Moroni.
It is humorous to see you argue such a point.