Credobaptism

[Josiah]

You reject that the Bible shows the Apostles only baptizing those who confess they are believers?

I simply reject that it MUST be accepted as dogmatically true because YOU now say so.


If you can show that there was never a baptism administered by any of the 13 Apostles that did not FIRST in chronological time have proven that the recipient first chose Jesus as their personal Savior, and they prohibited the baptism of any who had not first proven that, then I'll accept your point. Until then, it's just noise. I reject your demand for individual exclusion from accountability, for individual application of infallibility for you yourself alone.


And IF you do that, some indication that such matters to you, that you care, that you ONLY do those things you can document all 13 Apostles only did and forbid all the things those 13 Apostles never permitted. Otherwise, your point is irrelevant; there's no merit for us to accept a point you yourself reject.

Please show us one instance where a person the Apostles baptized did not first believe.

This is yet another SILLY apologetical point YOU YOURSELF reject. It is NOT the burden of proof of those who don't accept something as dogmatic fact to show it is not that, it is the one insisting on its truth to show that. If Bob said, "It is a dogmatic fact that there are 13 flying purple people eaters hiding on the planet Mars," is that a dogmatic fact IF you cannot prove that false? OF COURSE NOT. See how silly, how absurd your rubric is? You are just showing your empty hand.



You are doing EXACTLY what you condemn and disallow: You state we MUST "scrap" all tradition (how persons, churches, denominations understand and interpret things - that includes Baptists) and ONLY exclusively go by what the Bible states. But so far, you've not once quoted any Scripture stating, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they hath first in chronologial time prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior." And ALL you do is verbatim parrot (perfectly) the tradition of Baptists. Like a broken record.




.

 

[Josiah]

Acts 2:38
Matthew 16:15-19;
Matthew 18:15-20;
Acts 2:41-42,
Acts 2:47;
Acts 5:11-14;
Acts 6:3-6;
Acts 13:1-3;
Acts 14:23,27;
Acts 15:1-30;
Acts 16:5;
Acts 20:28;
Romans 1:7;
1 Corinthians 1:2;
1 Corinthians 3:16;
1 Corinthians 5:4-5;
1 Corinthians 7:17;
1 Corinthians 9:12;
1 Corinthians 9:13-14;
Ephesians 1:22-23;
Ephesians 2:19-22;
Ephesians 3:8-11,
Ephesians 3:21;
Ephesians 5:22-32;
Philippians 1:1;
Colossians 1:18;
1 Timothy 2:9-14;
1 Timothy 3:1-15;
1 Timothy 4:14;
Hebrews 11:39-40;
1 Peter 5:1-4;
Revelation 2-3;
Revelation 21:2-3.
Matthew 3:13-17;
Matthew 26:26-30;
Matthew 28:19-20;
Mark 1:9-11;
Mark 14:22-26;
Luke 3:21-22;
Luke 22:19-20;
John 3:23;
Acts 2:41-42;
Acts 8:35-39;
Acts 16:30-33;
Acts 20:7;
Romans 6:3-5;
1 Corinthians 10:16,
1 Corinthians 10:21;
1 Corinthians 11:23-29;
Colossians 2:12.

Which one states that all 13 of the Apostles never baptized any who had not in chronological time FIRST documented that they chose Jesus as their personal Savior and forbad the baptisms of all who had not do that?

Which one states that we can not baptize any unless and until they hath first in time proven they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, after that, the prohibition to baptism is lifted and then they may be baptized?

Which one states that we are forbidden and prohibited to baptize any who has not previously proven they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and all others are heretical, invalid and forbidden?

Which one states, "thou canst ONLY do what all the 13 Apostles always did and art forbidden to do anything they did not do?"

Virtually none of the verses you reference even MENTION baptism or choosing Jesus as one's personal Savior. And where is 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15, and Acts 16:33 all of which DO speak of Baptisms?




It's YOUR dogma. It's YOUR apologetic.


I'm NOT the one dogmatically insisting that YOUR baptism is unbiblical, forbidden, prohibited, invalid, heretical.




.

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]

I'm NOT the one dogmatically insisting that YOUR baptism is unbiblical, forbidden, prohibited, invalid, heretical.

Nor am I stating that your baptism is.

In Acts 2:38 Peter commands “each of you” to “Repent and be baptized”.
We just do what Peter said to do. Us, and our children and all who are far off.
You should try it.

 

[MennoSota]

I simply reject that it MUST be accepted as dogmatically true because YOU now say so.


If you can show that there was never a baptism administered by any of the 13 Apostles that did not FIRST in chronological time have proven that the recipient first chose Jesus as their personal Savior, and they prohibited the baptism of any who had not first proven that, then I'll accept your point. Until then, it's just noise. I reject your demand for individual exclusion from accountability, for individual application of infallibility for you yourself alone.


And IF you do that, some indication that such matters to you, that you care, that you ONLY do those things you can document all 13 Apostles only did and forbid all the things those 13 Apostles never permitted. Otherwise, your point is irrelevant; there's no merit for us to accept a point you yourself reject.







This is yet another SILLY apologetical point YOU YOURSELF reject. It is NOT the burden of proof of those who don't accept something as dogmatic fact to show it is not that, it is the one insisting on its truth to show that. If Bob said, "It is a dogmatic fact that there are 13 flying purple people eaters hiding on the planet Mars," is that a dogmatic fact IF you cannot prove that false? OF COURSE NOT. See how silly, how absurd your rubric is? You are just showing your empty hand.



You are doing EXACTLY what you condemn and disallow: You state we MUST "scrap" all tradition (how persons, churches, denominations understand and interpret things - that includes Baptists) and ONLY exclusively go by what the Bible states. But so far, you've not once quoted any Scripture stating, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they hath first in chronologial time prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior." And ALL you do is verbatim parrot (perfectly) the tradition of Baptists. Like a broken record.




.

You reject what is shown in scripture and accept what you input into scripture with no actual proof. You then claim it is more valid than what the Bible actually reveals.
Can you not see how prideful your position is?
You actually reject what God has revealed in order to hold onto a tradition. Have we seen that before? Oh right...we see the Pharisees and Sadducees doing that.
Finally, I have never said "scrap all tradition." I have said we must throw out all tradition that is not supported by scripture. Clearly the Bible never supports baptizing non-believers. And, honestly...at an age of X, you refuse to baptize non-believers. It's just that the little ones are so easily baptized cause the little sinners can't fight back...yet...so you baptize them not even caring about their lack of faith.

 

[Josiah]

Nor am I stating that your baptism is.

Ah... then you are okay with my being baptized when I was less than a minute old and not conscience? You do NOT dogmatically declare that wrong, forbidden, prohibited, invalid and against Scripture? Your dogma is mine is fine?

In Acts 2:38 Peter commands “each of you” to “Repent and be baptized”.

Remember, I have FULLY agreed with EVERY WORD in EVERY SCRIPTURE you have referenced or quoted. And we have already agreed that the koine Greek word "kai" does not mean (much less dogmatically mandate) chronological sequence. No one - NO ONE - has argued that repentance is not a command or is not relevant to soteriology. Please try to stick to the subject, especially since it is YOUR demand (not mine!) that no one is permitted to discuss other issues in these baptism threads.

There is one issue before us. Only one you will permit us to discuss. The Dogma that it is forbidden, prohibited, invalid to baptize any unless and until they have FIRST in chronological sequence proven that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, after that is accomplished by the recipient, THEN the prohibition to baptize (?) is lifted and said person may be baptized. Your Dogma (definitive and defining dogma at that) is this MANDATE, this PROHIBITION based one one thing: the receiver FIRST proving they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior.


It has been stated that this mandate is stated in Scripture, but so far no such Scripture has been given.
It has been stated that all 13 Apostles always mandated this in every baptism they administered and forbade baptism where this was not proven. But NOTHING has been provided to show this is true.
It has been stated all the baptisms in the Bible were only to those who first proved this. But NOTHING has been offered to show this true (several verses evaded in this regard)
It has been stated that there were NO baptisms in the early church were it was not FIRST proven the person had already chosen Jesus as their personal Savior (a point proved to be completely wrong)



.




.

 

[atpollard]

Ah... then you are okay with my being baptized when I was less than a minute old and not conscience? You do NOT dogmatically declare that wrong, forbidden, prohibited, invalid and against Scripture? Your dogma is mine is fine?

I am not qualified to create Church Dogma.
You are not my child, so God did not appoint me to make decisions for you when you were any age (including less than a minute old), so that decision is not mine to justify or defend or receive credit for. I am responsible for the child that God has entrusted to me and she was not baptized at less than a minute old yet has managed to grow into a gentle Christian spirit that was baptized when she decided she was ready based on a lifetime of being raised in a Christian household and learning to love and trust Jesus from her earliest days.

I am also responsible for who I personally baptize, and I would not personally baptize a minute old baby, but that does not mean that I would stop another from doing so. They will answer to God for their actions and conscience just as I will answer to God for my actions and conscience.

Remember, I have FULLY agreed with EVERY WORD in EVERY SCRIPTURE you have referenced or quoted. And we have already agreed that the koine Greek word "kai" does not mean (much less dogmatically mandate) chronological sequence. No one - NO ONE - has argued that repentance is not a command or is not relevant to soteriology. Please try to stick to the subject, especially since it is YOUR demand (not mine!) that no one is permitted to discuss other issues in these baptism threads.

There is one issue before us. Only one you will permit us to discuss. The Dogma that it is forbidden, prohibited, invalid to baptize any unless and until they have FIRST in chronological sequence proven that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, after that is accomplished by the recipient, THEN the prohibition to baptize (?) is lifted and said person may be baptized. Your Dogma (definitive and defining dogma at that) is this MANDATE, this PROHIBITION based one one thing: the receiver FIRST proving they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior.


It has been stated that this mandate is stated in Scripture, but so far no such Scripture has been given.
It has been stated that all 13 Apostles always mandated this in every baptism they administered and forbade baptism where this was not proven. But NOTHING has been provided to show this is true.
It has been stated all the baptisms in the Bible were only to those who first proved this. But NOTHING has been offered to show this true (several verses evaded in this regard)
It has been stated that there were NO baptisms in the early church were it was not FIRST proven the person had already chosen Jesus as their personal Savior (a point proved to be completely wrong)

You may have agreed with the scripture, but you do not advocate obeying it.
In Acts 2:38 Peter commands “each of you” to “repent” and (kai) “be baptized”.
Do Lutheran babies repent BEFORE they are baptized?
Do Lutheran babies repent WHILE they are baptized?
Do Lutheran babies repent AFTER they are baptized?

If they repent AFTER they are baptized, how long after? Soon after or long after?
If they repent long after they are baptized, then do ALL Lutheran babies that are baptized eventually repent?
If some Lutheran babies never repent, then is not the Lutheran Church an accomplice in violating the command of Peter to repent (kai) be baptized?


Since I know that Josiah does not comprehend logical arguments given in the form of rhetorical questions, I will restate the argument just for you:

By baptizing babies that have not repented BEFORE, DURING or AFTER their baptism, the Padeobaptist churches are guilty of violating the command of Peter in Acts 2:38 and of causing the baby to also violate that same command.

Kai requires that both “baptism” and “repentance” MUST be done ... even if you reject the logical order.

 

[atpollard]

The HOUSEHOLD of Stephanas:

[1Co 1:16 NASB] 16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.

[1Co 16:15 NASB] 15 Now I urge you, brethren (you know the household of Stephanas, that they were the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints),

[1Co 16:17 NASB] 17 I rejoice over the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus, because they have supplied what was lacking on your part.

What do we know about the HOUSEHOLD of Stephanas:
1. Paul baptized the (entire) household.
2. The (entire) household were the first fruits of Achaia.
3. The (entire) household had “devoted themselves for ministry to the saints”.
4. Stephanas was able to leave home for extended travel to minister to Paul and the (entire) household was still able to devote themselves to the ministry to the saints.

So either EACH AND EVERY member of the household was both baptized and old enough to devote themselves to for ministry to the saints, or SOME members of the household may have been too young to devote themselves to the ministry of the saints and those same members need not have been baptized either.

So scratch the Household of Stephanas off the list of candidates for proof of Baptized Babies and add it to the long list of Baptized Believers seen in Scripture.

 

[Josiah]

I am not qualified to create Church Dogma.

Of course not. But you do proclaim and defend your denomination's dogma of Credobaptism (among other baptism dogmas). And that DOGMA (not just polity!) is that a permitted, valid baptism MUST have been done in chronological time AFTER the recipient has documented that they had previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Other baptisms are unbiblical, heretical, not permitted, forbidden, wrong.

I'm NOT saying that YOUR baptism is invalid or wrong or heretical or forbidden. The dogma you are proclaiming and defending dogmatically states exactly that about mine. Just good for you to keep that in mind.

You may have agreed with the scripture, but you do not advocate obeying it.

I do agree we should obey the commands of Scripture. It's just that you have yet to present the Scripture that states, "FIRST in chronologial time one must publicly prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior then AFTER THAT, after the person has accomplished that, then the prohibition to baptize is lifted and said person may THEN after that be baptized. And I agree with you that the koine Greek word "kai" does not mean (much less dogmatically mandate) chronological sequence so neither of us will found a DOMGA on a grammatical mistake and error.

By baptizing babies that have not repented BEFORE, DURING or AFTER their baptism

I remind you that it is NOT my task to prove this Dogma invented in the late 16th Century by some radical synergists to be FALSE. It's YOUR task to prove it TRUE - to the level claimed, dogma.


And remember, other than Baptists and since the late 16th Century, there is/has been NO dogma concerning the prohibition of baptizing those who have not previously proven they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Traditional Christianity does NOT have ANY dogmatic mandate or prohibition or requirement or limitation on age via-a-vis Baptism (nice try to turn the tables). IF I had a dogma, "It is forbidden, disallowed, heretical and invalid to baptize any over the age of 82 hours" THEN you could require I support my mandate AS YOU TOO must do. NOTHING would change for you - you'd STILL have the burden of proof to show your Dogma about age requirement is true to the level claimed, of course.

Kai requires that both “baptism” and “repentance” MUST be done

I won't argue that point (partly because you won't allow it) but that how does that prove there is a MANDATE of a particular chronological sequence dogmatically demanded in that verse? Where does it state, "thou canst NOT baptize anyone but must forbid it until the person has first in chronological time (THE SOLE ISSUE HERE) has proven they have FIRST proven they have accepted Jesus as their personal Savior. Where does this verse (or any Scripture) state the DOGMATIC MANDATE of a chronological order here?

I've ALREADY - over and over and over again, post after post - STATED flat out that I ACCEPT and NO NOT IN ANY WAY reject that MUCH, MUCH is associated in soteriology (this verse IMO using "salvation" in a very broad sense). I don't deny that. But that reality does not dogmatically prove that it is dogmatically forbidden, prohibited, heretical to baptize one who has NOT in chronological time BEFORE they have publicly proven that FIRST have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Yeah..... love and service and forgiving and uplifting and humility and teaching and MANY OTHER things are associated with soteriology; that fails to substantiate this dogma you promote and defend - and rebuke me for not doing; this dogma that declares MY baptism is heretical, invalid, forbidden, not permitted. I've writting to you often about this.... I've written about grace being in place simply by God's nature... all this you've always ignored.

Padeobaptist churches are guilty of violating the command of Peter in Acts 2:38 and of causing the baby to also violate that same command.


.

You insist (in big oversize font) that non-Anti-Paedobaptists are CAUSING their children to never repent. You suggest that if every Christian doesn't just obey this invention of an Anabaptist in the late 16th Century, we are CAUSING people to never repent.

Show me where not dogmatically forbidding those under the age of X is CAUSING people to never repent. WHAT - specially - have my wife and I done with our son that dogmatically CAUSED him to 'never repent.' And if it CAUSES such, then for 1500 + years, not one Christian ever repented because virtually all of them were baptized before the age of X and thus were CAUSED to never repent (that would include John Calvin). You suggest that we have CAUSED our son to never repent.... and that our parents caused my wife and I to never repent because we were baptized before we publicly proved we had chosen Jesus as our personal Savior. Do you have a clue how personally offensive that is?


Remember: YOU are the one with the dogma saying my baptism I received is heretical, invalid, prohibited (and how, CAUSED me to never repent). I'm NOT saying - not as dogma or even as a personal opinion - that YOUR baptism is heretical, invalid, forbidden. Keep that ever in mind.




Here's the issue: The DOGMATIC claim that there is a biblical statement that we are forbidden to baptize any unless FIRST in chronological time that person FIRST has publicly proven that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior; other baptisms are forbidden, prohibited, invalid. (No Christian it seems for 1500 years ever saw that Scripture but that's their problem). Is that true? AND this is affirmed because every time baptism happened in Bible, it is shown that everyone FIRST proved that choice and that every time the 13 Apostles baptized, it was ONLY to those who FIRST proved they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and they always forbade any baptism where that was not the point. But is that true? And the Bible says we cannot do anything unless it is shown that it was done that way in the Bible and we MUST do all things just as they were done in the Bible. But is that true?







.

 

[atpollard]

Of course not. But you do proclaim and defend your denomination's dogma of Credobaptism (among other baptism dogmas). And that DOGMA (not just polity!) is that a permitted, valid baptism MUST have been done in chronological time AFTER the recipient has documented that they had previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Other baptisms are unbiblical, heretical, not permitted, forbidden, wrong.

I'm NOT saying that YOUR baptism is invalid or wrong or heretical or forbidden. The dogma you are proclaiming and defending dogmatically states exactly that about mine. Just good for you to keep that in mind.

I do agree we should obey the commands of Scripture. It's just that you have yet to present the Scripture that states, "FIRST in chronologial time one must publicly prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior then AFTER THAT, after the person has accomplished that, then the prohibition to baptize is lifted and said person may THEN after that be baptized. And I agree with you that the koine Greek word "kai" does not mean (much less dogmatically mandate) chronological sequence so neither of us will found a DOMGA on a grammatical mistake and error.

I remind you that it is NOT my task to prove this Dogma invented in the late 16th Century by some radical synergists to be FALSE. It's YOUR task to prove it TRUE - to the level claimed, dogma.

And remember, other than Baptists and since the late 16th Century, there is/has been NO dogma concerning the prohibition of baptizing those who have not previously proven they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Traditional Christianity does NOT have ANY dogmatic mandate or prohibition or requirement or limitation on age via-a-vis Baptism (nice try to turn the tables). IF I had a dogma, "It is forbidden, disallowed, heretical and invalid to baptize any over the age of 82 hours" THEN you could require I support my mandate AS YOU TOO must do. NOTHING would change for you - you'd STILL have the burden of proof to show your Dogma about age requirement is true to the level claimed, of course.

I won't argue that point (partly because you won't allow it) but that how does that prove there is a MANDATE of a particular chronological sequence dogmatically demanded in that verse? Where does it state, "thou canst NOT baptize anyone but must forbid it until the person has first in chronological time (THE SOLE ISSUE HERE) has proven they have FIRST proven they have accepted Jesus as their personal Savior. Where does this verse (or any Scripture) state the DOGMATIC MANDATE of a chronological order here?

I've ALREADY - over and over and over again, post after post - STATED flat out that I ACCEPT and NO NOT IN ANY WAY reject that MUCH, MUCH is associated in soteriology (this verse IMO using "salvation" in a very broad sense). I don't deny that. But that reality does not dogmatically prove that it is dogmatically forbidden, prohibited, heretical to baptize one who has NOT in chronological time BEFORE they have publicly proven that FIRST have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Yeah..... love and service and forgiving and uplifting and humility and teaching and MANY OTHER things are associated with soteriology; that fails to substantiate this dogma you promote and defend - and rebuke me for not doing; this dogma that declares MY baptism is heretical, invalid, forbidden, not permitted. I've writting to you often about this.... I've written about grace being in place simply by God's nature... all this you've always ignored.

You insist (in big oversize font) that non-Anti-Paedobaptists are CAUSING their children to never repent. You suggest that if every Christian doesn't just obey this invention of an Anabaptist in the late 16th Century, we are CAUSING people to never repent.

Show me where not dogmatically forbidding those under the age of X is CAUSING people to never repent. WHAT - specially - have my wife and I done with our son that dogmatically CAUSED him to 'never repent.' And if it CAUSES such, then for 1500 + years, not one Christian ever repented because virtually all of them were baptized before the age of X and thus were CAUSED to never repent (that would include John Calvin). You suggest that we have CAUSED our son to never repent.... and that our parents caused my wife and I to never repent because we were baptized before we publicly proved we had chosen Jesus as our personal Savior. Do you have a clue how personally offensive that is?

Remember: YOU are the one with the dogma saying my baptism I received is heretical, invalid, prohibited (and how, CAUSED me to never repent). I'm NOT saying - not as dogma or even as a personal opinion - that YOUR baptism is heretical, invalid, forbidden. Keep that ever in mind.

Here's the issue: The DOGMATIC claim that there is a biblical statement that we are forbidden to baptize any unless FIRST in chronological time that person FIRST has publicly proven that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior; other baptisms are forbidden, prohibited, invalid. (No Christian it seems for 1500 years ever saw that Scripture but that's their problem). Is that true? AND this is affirmed because every time baptism happened in Bible, it is shown that everyone FIRST proved that choice and that every time the 13 Apostles baptized, it was ONLY to those who FIRST proved they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and they always forbade any baptism where that was not the point. But is that true? And the Bible says we cannot do anything unless it is shown that it was done that way in the Bible and we MUST do all things just as they were done in the Bible. But is that true?
.

Good grief man, try again.

The Apostle Peter is not a 16th Century Anabaptist. Peter is a First Century ‘Baptist’ commanding each of you (adults, children and those far off) in Acts 2:38 to Repent and be baptized ... both actions together linked by “and”. Stop baptizing without repenting and claiming you are doing what Peter said. It is not me or my denomination or the 16th Century Anabaptist that wrote the Book of Acts.

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]

You insist (in big oversize font) that non-Anti-Paedobaptists are CAUSING their children to never repent. You suggest that if every Christian doesn't just obey this invention of an Anabaptist in the late 16th Century, we are CAUSING people to never repent.

Show me where not dogmatically forbidding those under the age of X is CAUSING people to never repent. WHAT - specially - have my wife and I done with our son that dogmatically CAUSED him to 'never repent.' And if it CAUSES such, then for 1500 + years, not one Christian ever repented because virtually all of them were baptized before the age of X and thus were CAUSED to never repent (that would include John Calvin). You suggest that we have CAUSED our son to never repent.... and that our parents caused my wife and I to never repent because we were baptized before we publicly proved we had chosen Jesus as our personal Savior. Do you have a clue how personally offensive that is?

Save your personal offense. It is unwarranted.

No person is responsible for another person choosing or not choosing to repent. That is 100% on the person who chose not to repent (or on God who chose the person to receive the gift of faith).

A person who chooses not to repent and has not been baptized is not guilty of violating the command of Acts 2:38. They neither repented nor were baptized so there is no sense in which they were ever obeying Peter. A person (say an adult) that deliberately lies and chooses to be baptized while deliberately lying about their repentance (like a wolf in sheep clothes), is twice condemned. Once for his refusal to repent and once for his mockery of baptism.

I fear that the Padeobaptist Churches are setting up those children that never repent to be twice condemned, once for their refusal to repent and once for their mockery of the Ordinance of Baptism.

That is not a reason why YOU should not baptize your children. You will answer to God for your own heart. However, that is a reason why I must refuse to baptize children or risk condemnation for disobedience to my own heart.

[PS. I only made the text large so it would stand out from the wall of text surrounding it.]

 

[Josiah]

The Apostle Peter is not a 16th Century Anabaptist.

So it's not surprising he never stated that we are forbidden to administer baptism unless and until, in chronological time, the recipient has FIRST publicly shown they previously had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior.

And nothing about if one is baptized before they prove they've chosen Jesus, that CAUSES them to never repent.

Acts 2:38 to Repent and be baptized ... both actions together linked by “and”.

EXACTLY! Not "after that." There goes your entire apologetic.

There are words in koine Greek that mean "then" and words that expressly mean sequence....and none of them are used in any connection to baptism, and certainly not in Acts 2:38.


YES - YES - a thousand times already said YES!!!!!!!! There are many things associated with soteriology. I have NEVER REMOTELY said otherwise. I have agreed OVER and OVER and OVER again. In post after post. Now, see if you can address the issue at hand? At least start? I've ALREADY - over and over and over again, post after post - STATED flat out that I ACCEPT and NO NOT IN ANY WAY reject that MUCH, MUCH is associated in soteriology (this verse IMO using "salvation" in a very broad sense). I don't deny that. I affirm that. But that reality does not dogmatically prove that it is dogmatically forbidden, prohibited, heretical to baptize one who has NOT in chronological time BEFORE they have publicly proven that FIRST have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Yeah..... love and service and forgiving and uplifting and humility and teaching and MANY OTHER things are associated with soteriology; that fails to substantiate this dogma you promote and defend - and rebuke me for not doing; this dogma that declares MY baptism is heretical, invalid, forbidden, not permitted. I've writing to you often about this.... I've written about grace being in place simply by God's nature... all this you've always totally ignored.

And I find ABSURD your claim that Peter is stating that we one is baptized prior to proving they have accepted Jesus as their personal Savior, that "CAUSES" them to never repent. That's absurd. And offensive. And no, you are wrong, Peter does NOT state that! No!

Now, IF you want to actually READ the post... and RESPOND ... do.



.

 

[MennoSota]

Did Peter ever baptize a person who had not confessed faith in Christ?
I cannot find an incident.
Perhaps Josiah can share a passage where Peter baptizes an unrepentant person.

 

[atpollard]

Did Peter ever baptize a person who had not confessed faith in Christ?
I cannot find an incident.
Perhaps Josiah can share a passage where Peter baptizes an unrepentant person.

He doesn’t need to, remember. WE have to prove that every person baptized by every Apostle FIRST believed, was over the age of accountability and was fully immersed and then MAYBE Josiah will consider the possibility of our position. However, as long as the possibility remains that one Apostle MIGHT have baptized one person that does not meet all three criteria, then the Padeobaptists must be correct.

We will simply need to find the Apostle John’s home movie collection to win this argument.

 

[Josiah]

Did Peter ever baptize a person who had not confessed faith in Christ?

Prove that he only did that? Prove that for every Apostle, every adminsiter of Baptism.

Then prove that you church NEVER does ANYTHING that is not specifically exactly as is stated was done in the Bible and ALWAYS does exactly as things were done in the Bible.


Your claim is that every one baptized in the Bible had previously stated they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. But you refuse to prove it's true (you want others to prove you false, how silly is that?) Take Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 and prove all those baptized in those households had FIRST in chronological time had proven they FIRST had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Can't? Then you can't say all baptized as indicated in the Bible FIRST proved that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior.

You claim we must do everything just as they did it in the Bible and cannot do otherwise. But you don't seem to believe yourself. And I suspect if I visited your church, I'd see LOTS of things never illustrated as done just like that in the Bible.

This is YOUR dogma. YOU have the burden of proof to the level claimed. YOU are the one who MANDATES that we "scrap" all tradition (how persons or churches or denominations understand and interpret things - INCLUDING BAPTISTS) and rather we can go only by what the Bible states. But you refuse to show where the Bible states this dogma of yours, this FIRST prove you have accepted Jesus as your personal Savior or the baptism is forbidden, heretical, invalid". And all you do is parrot the baptist tradition. All you do is what you denounce, forbid.

He doesn’t need to, remember. WE have to

Correct. Sorry, it's how it goes. YOU are the one with the dogma (and you have mandated we discuss no other dogma here). YOU are the ones promoting and defending the dogma invented by those Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, the one that FIRST in chronological time, one must adequately and publicly show that FIRST they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior then AFTER that is performed, THEN the prohibition to baptize is lifted and that one may be baptized. That's the dogma you are promoting and defending. The "burden of proof" lies ENTIRELY with those stating it is true, not with ones unconvinced. Again, if Bob stated that "there are 12 flying purple people eaters hiding on the planet Mars" it would NOT be a dogmatic fact if you can't prove it false. What a silly thing you are trying to suggest. NO, it is exclusively Bob's role to prove what he said is true.

You have dogma. You have the burden of proof. Sorry, Arthur, that's the way this works. And yes, when it's dogma - that's a high level, a high bar. You are N, OT saying "this seems like the best praxis" you are saying "this is mandated in the Bible and to do otherwise is heresy, invalid, prohibited." Now you've added, "and causes people to not repent." Show that's TRUE, to the level claimed. And show you yourself accept your own arguments.


.

 

[MennoSota]

He doesn’t need to, remember. WE have to prove that every person baptized by every Apostle FIRST believed, was over the age of accountability and was fully immersed and then MAYBE Josiah will consider the possibility of our position. However, as long as the possibility remains that one Apostle MIGHT have baptized one person that does not meet all three criteria, then the Padeobaptists must be correct.

We will simply need to find the Apostle John’s home movie collection to win this argument.

Does he need to prove that one of the Apostles baptized an infant or is it okay for him to say "it may have, possibly, happened if we read infant into the word household"?
It's funny that he can declare a dogma with no actual proof, but even though every instance of baptism in the Bible shows confession of faith, it means nothing.

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]

And nothing about if one is baptized before they prove they've chosen Jesus, that CAUSES them to never repent.

Suck it up buttercup.
It was addressed in Post#70

No person is responsible for another person choosing or not choosing to repent. That is 100% on the person who chose not to repent (or on God who chose the person to receive the gift of faith).

A person who chooses not to repent and has not been baptized is not guilty of violating the command of Acts 2:38. They neither repented nor were baptized so there is no sense in which they were ever obeying Peter. A person (say an adult) that deliberately lies and chooses to be baptized while deliberately lying about their repentance (like a wolf in sheep clothes), is twice condemned. Once for his refusal to repent and once for his mockery of baptism.

I fear that the Padeobaptist Churches are setting up those children that never repent to be twice condemned, once for their refusal to repent and once for their mockery of the Ordinance of Baptism.

That is not a reason why YOU should not baptize your children. You will answer to God for your own heart. However, that is a reason why I must refuse to baptize children or risk condemnation for disobedience to my own heart.

 

[MennoSota]

Prove that he only did that? Prove that for every Apostle, every adminsiter of Baptism.

Then prove that you church NEVER does ANYTHING that is not specifically exactly as is stated was done in the Bible and ALWAYS does exactly as things were done in the Bible.


Your claim is that every one baptized in the Bible had previously stated they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. But you refuse to prove it's true (you want others to prove you false, how silly is that?) Take Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 and prove all those baptized in those households had FIRST in chronological time had proven they FIRST had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Can't? Then you can't say all baptized as indicated in the Bible FIRST proved that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior.

You claim we must do everything just as they did it in the Bible and cannot do otherwise. But you don't seem to believe yourself. And I suspect if I visited your church, I'd see LOTS of things never illustrated as done just like that in the Bible.

This is YOUR dogma. YOU have the burden of proof to the level claimed. YOU are the one who MANDATES that we "scrap" all tradition (how persons or churches or denominations understand and interpret things - INCLUDING BAPTISTS) and rather we can go only by what the Bible states. But you refuse to show where the Bible states this dogma of yours, this FIRST prove you have accepted Jesus as your personal Savior or the baptism is forbidden, heretical, invalid". And all you do is parrot the baptist tradition. All you do is what you denounce, forbid.


.

Josiah, did Peter ever baptize a person who had not confessed faith in Christ? Can you show us?
God chose to only show believers being baptized. That's all I have to go on.
Why is that not enough for you? Why is it so important for you to be able to baptize unrepentant sinners who don't know God?
Why do you choose to baptize some unrepentant sinners, yet not all unrepentant sinners?

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, did Peter ever baptize a person who had not confessed faith in Christ? Can you show us?

Not my task, I never dogmatically stated that all the baptisms in the Bible were of those who never indicated they chose Jesus as their personal Savior. I never dogmatically said that every baptism that ever happen before the Reformation was of people who never believed in Jesus. I'm not the one who said, "Peter never baptized anyone who ever had faith." You seem to be getting our positions confused.

YOU are the one who indicated that this prohibition is stated in the Bible. You just won't give the verse. You are the one insisting all baptisms done by the 13 Apostles were only done to those who previously had chosen Jesus as their Savior, you just exempt yourself from any need to show that's true.

You claim we must do everything just as they did it in the Bible and cannot do otherwise. But you don't seem to believe yourself. And I suspect if I visited your church, I'd see LOTS of things never illustrated as done just like that in the Bible.

This is YOUR dogma. YOU have the burden of proof to the level claimed. YOU are the one who MANDATES that we "scrap" all tradition (how persons or churches or denominations understand and interpret things - INCLUDING BAPTISTS) and rather we can go only by what the Bible states. But you refuse to show where the Bible states this dogma of yours, this dogma of FIRST prove you have accepted Jesus as your personal Savior or the baptism is forbidden, heretical, invalid. And all you do is parrot the baptist tradition. All you do is what you denounce, forbid.



.

 

[MennoSota]

Not my task, I never dogmatically stated that all the baptisms in the Bible were of those who never indicated they chose Jesus as their personal Savior. I never dogmatically said that every baptism that ever happen before the Reformation was of people who never believed in Jesus. I'm not the one who said, "Peter never baptized anyone who ever had faith." You seem to be getting our positions confused.

YOU are the one who indicated that this prohibition is stated in the Bible. You just won't give the verse. You are the one insisting all baptisms done by the 13 Apostles were only done to those who previously had chosen Jesus as their Savior, you just exempt yourself from any need to show that's true.

You claim we must do everything just as they did it in the Bible and cannot do otherwise. But you don't seem to believe yourself. And I suspect if I visited your church, I'd see LOTS of things never illustrated as done just like that in the Bible.

This is YOUR dogma. YOU have the burden of proof to the level claimed. YOU are the one who MANDATES that we "scrap" all tradition (how persons or churches or denominations understand and interpret things - INCLUDING BAPTISTS) and rather we can go only by what the Bible states. But you refuse to show where the Bible states this dogma of yours, this dogma of FIRST prove you have accepted Jesus as your personal Savior or the baptism is forbidden, heretical, invalid. And all you do is parrot the baptist tradition. All you do is what you denounce, forbid.



.

It's your task. Since you cannot, I accept your resignation in this discussion.

 

[Josiah]

I fear that the Padeobaptist Churches are setting up those children that never repent to be twice condemned, once for their refusal to repent and once for their mockery of the Ordinance of Baptism.

1. Show us where that verse states, "FIRST in chronological time, one must publicly and adequately show they PREVIOUSLY have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and AFTER THAT the prohibition to baptize (which you've never shown even exists) is lifted and AFTER THAT one may be baptized.


2. Show us where the verse states that if one if baptized previous to proving they have chosen Jesus, ergo they are "CAUSED" (the specific word you used in BIG HUGE font) to never repent?


3. How are all baptisms done before it's publicly and verbally proven someone has chosen Jesus "setting up" or "CAUSING" (the specific word you used in HUGE font) the person to not repent? Can you show in Scripture (or anywhere) that all Christians prior to that Anabaptist inventing Credobaptism in the late 16th Century didn't repent? We not repentant? That John Calvin wasn't repentant and the specific reason (you can show) is that he was baptized before he gave public testimony that he had chosen Jesus as his personal Savior?


4. How am I personally "CONDEMNED" because I was baptized prior to me publicly and verbally giving adequate testimony that I had chosen Jesus as my personal Savior? And how that baptism "CAUSED" me to not be repentant?


5. Specifically, how are your personal feelings substantiation of the dogma to the level claimed? If I personally feared someone would be drowned by immersion baptism (even though I have NO examples where I can prove that happened), does that prove that the Dogma of Immersion Only Baptism is wrong, heretical, forbidden.... and means parents are CAUSING the death of their children?


Rather than showing that Scripture teaches the Dogma first invented by an anabaptist in the late 16th Century, now we are getting all these personal condemnations about how we are condemned and how we are causing people to not be repentant.



Come on...



- Josiah



.