Credobaptism

[MennoSota]

Ask serious questions and you might get a reply.

You're wasting everyone's time making up stuff like the above, pretending that one of us actually asked you something that never was said...and posting phony viewpoints that no one here has ever expressed.

Albion, you have no basis for you belief. You only have an opinion pushed by your church. When you have facts from scripture you may have something valid.

 

[MennoSota]

You referenced Acts 2:38 implying chronological order by use of the conjunction "and". So, does "Twist and Shout" imply the same order as "repent and be baptized"? If so, why? If not, why not?

I reference Acts 2:38 because that ACTUALLY happened. Meanwhile no mention of infant children ever baptized by the Apostles. Never even one mention.

 

[MennoSota]

Well, if baptism is a symbol that does nothing spiritual because water is not magic and baptism does not save or wash away sins and if baptism has nothing to do with being born from above then why complain when people don't take seriously your view of this merely symbolic empty ritual?

Does your church baptize unrepentant sinners who do not confess faith?
Babies are unrepentant sinners...are they not?

 

[MennoSota]

So now baptism is dependent on YOU deciding whether they can first meet your standards before baptism is allowed? How much repentance are you looking for? What signs of faith must be shown to you for you to be satisfied?

When you read about baptism in the Bible, it always takes place after a confession of faith. It never once takes place as a means of giving someone faith and the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, the Apostles always used discernment when they chose whom they were going to baptize. We see this when Paul speaks of who he did or did not baptize in Corinth.
Even your own church will not baptize an unrepentant adult. Discernment is used.
The only time your church throws discernment out the window is when baptizing infants who have confessed no faith at all.

 

[Lamb]

When you read about baptism in the Bible, it always takes place after a confession of faith. It never once takes place as a means of giving someone faith and the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, the Apostles always used discernment when they chose whom they were going to baptize. We see this when Paul speaks of who he did or did not baptize in Corinth.
Even your own church will not baptize an unrepentant adult. Discernment is used.
The only time your church throws discernment out the window is when baptizing infants who have confessed no faith at all.

When I read about baptism I see that one member of a household believed and then had his entire household baptized.

 

[Josiah]

When you read about baptism in the Bible, it always takes place after a confession of faith.

1. Irrelevant to the issue of whether it is dogmatically MANDATED in the Bible that one must in our chronological time FIRST publicly, verbally and adequately prove they have previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and to do otherwise is forbidden, heretical, invalid (and to all what you and atpollard have added, a mockery to God and causes God to be unable to bless them and causes them to be unrepentant). It's true Mary rode on a donkey; how does that make it heretical to ride a bicycle and a heresy if that is done? What a silly premise you have.



2. You keep chanting your claims..... over and over and over, like a broken record, as your constant mantra.... and REFUSING to show that it's true, that it has any truth to it at all, insisting that you don't need to show it's true because you are parroting it. You have been asked to show your claim is true in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 for example, and you ignore that 90% of the time (what you claim is just to be swallowed, "I don't need to show it is true"), and the rest you prove that your claim is false but it doesn't matter because you just keep parroting it it endlessly anyway.


3. Your whole apologetic is founded on a premise that we MUST do everything exactly the precise way things were done in the Bible (even if it cannot be show it WAS done that way, it doesn't matter if it was or wasn't) and we are forbidden to do anything in any way other than the exact way it was done in the Bible. But THE ENTIRE apologetic is one you reject and don't follow (you prove it every time you post on the internet). I'm pretty sure if I visited your church some Sunday, I'd be hard pressed to find much of anything done exactly as was done in Genesis - Revelation and nearly everything done in ways NOT seen in Genesis - Revelation. Since you yourself repudiate your entire apologetic, it's either absurd or hypocritical for you to use it.


4. You yourself DEMAND that all "scrap" all tradition (how individual persons, churches, denominations understand and interpret things - including you and including Baptists and Mennonites) and "go ONLY by the words of Scripture." So, we're waiting. Where is the verse, "thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath in your chronological time verbally and publicly and adequately proven that they previously have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and to do otherwise is heretical, forbidden, invalid (and to add points you and atpollard have made, "and is a mockery to God and causes God to be unable to bless them and causes them to be unrepentant)." YOU REFUSE to give any Scripture that states what you do.... and ONLY parrot perfectly your tradition. ALL YOU DO is the very exact thing you demand cannot be done.




.



.

 

[MennoSota]

When I read about baptism I see that one member of a household believed and then had his entire household baptized.

Observation:
1) The gospel is preached to all the household.
2) The jailer washes Paul and Silas' wounds
3) The jailer is baptized at once.
4) His family is baptized.

What is not observed:
1) The age of the jailer.
2) The age of his family members
3) Servants in the household being baptized.
4) Infants being baptized.
5) The number of people in the jailers family.

Thus, age is purely speculation. We cannot claim infants were baptized because we do not observe them being baptized.
Let us stick with facts and stop clinging to speculation.

Acts 16:30-33 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.

 

[MennoSota]

1. Irrelevant to the issue of whether it is dogmatically MANDATED in the Bible that one must in our chronological time FIRST publicly, verbally and adequately prove they have previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and to do otherwise is forbidden, heretical, invalid (and to all what you and atpollard have added, a mockery to God and causes God to be unable to bless them and causes them to be unrepentant). It's true Mary rode on a donkey; how does that make it heretical to ride a bicycle and a heresy if that is done? What a silly premise you have.



2. You keep chanting your claims..... over and over and over, like a broken record, as your constant mantra.... and REFUSING to show that it's true, that it has any truth to it at all, insisting that you don't need to show it's true because you are parroting it. You have been asked to show your claim is true in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 for example, and you ignore that 90% of the time (what you claim is just to be swallowed, "I don't need to show it is true"), and the rest you prove that your claim is false but it doesn't matter because you just keep parroting it it endlessly anyway.


3. Your whole apologetic is founded on a premise that we MUST do everything exactly the precise way things were done in the Bible (even if it cannot be show it WAS done that way, it doesn't matter if it was or wasn't) and we are forbidden to do anything in any way other than the exact way it was done in the Bible. But THE ENTIRE apologetic is one you reject and don't follow (you prove it every time you post on the internet). I'm pretty sure if I visited your church some Sunday, I'd be hard pressed to find much of anything done exactly as was done in Genesis - Revelation and nearly everything done in ways NOT seen in Genesis - Revelation. Since you yourself repudiate your entire apologetic, it's either absurd or hypocritical for you to use it.


4. You yourself DEMAND that all "scrap" all tradition (how individual persons, churches, denominations understand and interpret things - including you and including Baptists and Mennonites) and "go ONLY by the words of Scripture." So, we're waiting. Where is the verse, "thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath in your chronological time verbally and publicly and adequately proven that they previously have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and to do otherwise is heretical, forbidden, invalid (and to add points you and atpollard have made, "and is a mockery to God and causes God to be unable to bless them and causes them to be unrepentant)." YOU REFUSE to give any Scripture that states what you do.... and ONLY parrot perfectly your tradition. ALL YOU DO is the very exact thing you demand cannot be done.




.



.

Observation of confession before baptism is irrelevant?
Okay Josiah you just "jumped the shark."

 

[psalms 91]

Observation:
1) The gospel is preached to all the household.
2) The jailer washes Paul and Silas' wounds
3) The jailer is baptized at once.
4) His family is baptized.

What is not observed:
1) The age of the jailer.
2) The age of his family members
3) Servants in the household being baptized.
4) Infants being baptized.
5) The number of people in the jailers family.

Thus, age is purely speculation. We cannot claim infants were baptized because we do not observe them being baptized.
Let us stick with facts and stop clinging to speculation.

Acts 16:30-33 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.

I dont think it matters for salvation but I will say that household in those days was multi generational in most cases and they had lots of kids if they were able to so whole household probably had some children and even perhaps babies. My own view is more like yours but i also dont think it hurts anything either.

 

[MennoSota]

I dont think it matters for salvation but I will say that household in those days was multi generational in most cases and they had lots of kids if they were able to so whole household probably had some children and even perhaps babies. My own view is more like yours but i also dont think it hurts anything either.

You must admit that what you state is purely speculation, however.
We see Abraham and Sarah and...Isaac. That is the family. No more. There are servants and others around, but they aren't family.
So, the size of the family cannot be observed. We cannot build a factual dogmatic statement based upon speculation.

 

[Josiah]

Baptism always takes place after a confession of faith.


.

1. Irrelevant to the issue of whether it is dogmatically MANDATED in the Bible that one must in our chronological time FIRST publicly, verbally and adequately prove they have previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and to do otherwise is forbidden, heretical, invalid (and to all what you and atpollard have added, a mockery to God and causes God to be unable to bless them and causes them to be unrepentant). It's true Mary rode on a donkey; how does that make it heretical to ride a bicycle and a heresy if that is done? What a silly premise you have.



2. You keep chanting your claims..... over and over and over, like a broken record, as your constant mantra.... and REFUSING to show that it's true, that it has any truth to it at all, insisting that you don't need to show it's true because you are parroting it. You have been asked to show your claim is true in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 for example, and you ignore that 90% of the time (what you claim is just to be swallowed, "I don't need to show it is true"), and the rest you prove that your claim is false but it doesn't matter because you just keep parroting it it endlessly anyway.


3. Your whole apologetic is founded on a premise that we MUST do everything exactly the precise way things were done in the Bible (even if it cannot be show it WAS done that way, it doesn't matter if it was or wasn't) and we are forbidden to do anything in any way other than the exact way it was done in the Bible. But THE ENTIRE apologetic is one you reject and don't follow (you prove it every time you post on the internet). I'm pretty sure if I visited your church some Sunday, I'd be hard pressed to find much of anything done exactly as was done in Genesis - Revelation and nearly everything done in ways NOT seen in Genesis - Revelation. Since you yourself repudiate your entire apologetic, it's either absurd or hypocritical for you to use it.


4. You yourself DEMAND that all "scrap" all tradition (how individual persons, churches, denominations understand and interpret things - including you and including Baptists and Mennonites) and "go ONLY by the words of Scripture." So, we're waiting. Where is the verse, "thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath in your chronological time verbally and publicly and adequately proven that they previously have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and to do otherwise is heretical, forbidden, invalid (and to add points you and atpollard have made, "and is a mockery to God and causes God to be unable to bless them and causes them to be unrepentant)." YOU REFUSE to give any Scripture that states what you do.... and ONLY parrot perfectly your tradition. ALL YOU DO is the very exact thing you demand cannot be done.

Read what you said. Read what I said.


What you show is irrelevant is whether your claim is true or even stated in the Bible. What is your claim? That every baptism in the Bible was of one who PREVIOUSLY in our chronological time FIRST verbally, publicly and adequately stated they had shown they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. But you will not show this is true. You don't care (you specifically stated, "I don't NEED to show it's true"). And when asked to show it's true say in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 you just dogmatically insist it has to be because it doesn't say so.

Yes, your APOLOGETIC is irrelevant, because you yourself have documented that's how YOU YOURSELF view it. Since you don't do everything exactly as it was done in Genesis - Revelation, and because you DO things that aren't exactly as done in Genesis - Revelation.... because you almost NEVER follow your own apologetic but repudiate and reject it as not binding, not true, not normative - then YOU are stating it's irrelevant.

 

[MennoSota]

Read what you said. Read what I said.


What you show is irrelevant is whether your claim is true or even stated in the Bible. What is your claim? That every baptism in the Bible was of one who PREVIOUSLY in our chronological time FIRST verbally, publicly and adequately stated they had shown they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. But you will not show this is true. You don't care (you specifically stated, "I don't NEED to show it's true"). And when asked to show it's true say in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 you just dogmatically insist it has to be because it doesn't say so.

Yes, your APOLOGETIC is irrelevant, because you yourself have documented that's how YOU YOURSELF view it. Since you don't do everything exactly as it was done in Genesis - Revelation, and because you DO things that aren't exactly as done in Genesis - Revelation.... because you almost NEVER follow your own apologetic but repudiate and reject it as not binding, not true, not normative - then YOU are stating it's irrelevant.

You are claiming God's word is irrelevant. Got it.

 

[Josiah]

You are claiming God's word is irrelevant.

No, I'm disagreeing with you that "every baptism in the Bible happened AFTER the person in our chronological time FIRST publicly, verbally, proved they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior." It's YOU who claimed it's irrelevant if it's true ("I don't need to show it's true'), not me.

I (like you) hold that it's irrelevant if you can show an example of something done or not done, even once, in the Bible. Can you show anyone posting on the internet? THEN WHY ARE YOU! Can you find anyone in the Bible that rode a bicycle? Then it is DOGMATICALLY prohibited, forbidden, a heresy and an invalid mode of transportation to do it? I call the apologetic that YOU YOURSELF reject and that YOU YOURSELF never follow but on which YOUR ENTIRE APOLOGETIC depends irrelevant - because you do. I reject it because YOU DO. I don't buy it because YOU DON'T.

Now if you even tried to show that your claim is true (but you refuse, "I don't need to show it") ... it would be irrelevant according to YOU because you don't give a rip if something is or is not exampled in the Bible, even once, you don't believe that makes that a dogmatic requirement or doing otherwise makes it a heresy;. And you prove it every time you post on the internet.




.

 

[MennoSota]

No, I'm disagreeing with you that "every baptism in the Bible happened AFTER the person in our chronological time FIRST publicly, verbally, proved they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior." It's YOU who claimed it's irrelevant if tt's true ("I don't need to show it's true').

And that it's irrelevant if you cam show an example of something done or not done, even once. Can you show anyone posting on the internet? THEN WHY ARE YOU! Can you find anyone in the Bible that rode a bicycle? Then it is DOGMATICALLY prohibited, forbidden, a heresy to do it? I call the apologic that YOU YOURSELF reject and that YOU YOURSELF never follow but on which YOUR ENTIRE APOLOGETIC depends irrelevant - because you do.

Now if you even tried to show that your claim is true (but you refuse, "I don't need to show it") ... it would be irrelevant according to YOU because you don't give a rip if something is or is not exampled in the Bible, even once, you don't believe that makes that a dogmatic requirement or doing otherwise makes it a heresy;. And you prove it every time you post on the internet.




.

The Bible speaks for itself. The Bible shows people confessing faith and then being baptized. This is fact.
The Bible never shows unrepentant, faithless, person's being baptized. This is fact.
The Bible never shows infants being baptized. This is fact.
Facts drive what we do and what we don't do.
You clearly act based on emotional feeling without any facts to support.
You reject the facts, saying facts are irrelevant, and you embrace feelings without fact.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

You referenced Acts 2:38 implying chronological order by use of the conjunction "and". So, does "Twist and Shout" imply the same order as "repent and be baptized"? If so, why? If not, why not?

I reference Acts 2:38 because that ACTUALLY happened. Meanwhile no mention of infant children ever baptized by the Apostles. Never even one mention.

I'm not discussing infant baptism here so we'll excuse that. I'm addressing chronological order. Now answer the question

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Does your church baptize unrepentant sinners who do not confess faith?
Babies are unrepentant sinners...are they not?

How exactly does one know the difference, whether infant, child, or adult? One can confess the faith yet remain an unrepentant sinner. So what is gained by the confession of faith?

 

[Josiah]

The Bible speaks for itself.]

Then it's easy. Just quote the Bible as IT (not you) says, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless in your chronological time the recipient hath FIRST verbally and publicly stated that they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and to do otherwise is heretical, prohibited, invalid." If the Bible speaks for itself, then show where it itself says that. Easy.

The Bible shows people confessing faith and then being baptized. This is fact.

Then you can prove it. Start with Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33.


Then show that YOU at least accept your own apologetic, that you NEVER do ANYTHING that is not exactly illustrated as done just like that in the Bible and ALL you do is exactly as was done in the Bible. YOu don't post on the internet. You don't Baptize people of Oriental or Asian races. You don't baptize anyone in a tank behind a curtain. You only use people of the Hebrew race to baptize. And of course, you don't give communion to women or children, you don't use grape juice, you don't use plastic cups in trays in Communion. And of course, you never use the internet. Since you don't accept the apologetic on which your entire argument rests, since you yourself reject it and don't follow it, it's just laughable to use it here.


Your whole argument is this: My dogma is true because the claim isn't shown as true "jibes" with a rule I reject as false.




.




.

 

[MennoSota]

I'm not discussing infant baptism here so we'll excuse that. I'm addressing chronological order. Now answer the question

So, you accept that every baptism in the book of Acts is done after confession of faith?

 

[MennoSota]

How exactly does one know the difference, whether infant, child, or adult? One can confess the faith yet remain an unrepentant sinner. So what is gained by the confession of faith?

People can lie about anything. This is why God calls us to discernment.
Can you have faith without faith actually working? How do you observe working faith in a 6 month old child? Can we observe working faith in a 10 year old child? How about a 20 year old person?
Does your leadership have no discernment regarding who is expressing faith? Did the Apostles have no discernment? Did Peter inquire as to a reason why Cornelius could not be baptized without calling for discernment?

Hebrews 11:1-2 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation.

What is gained by discernment is that the body of Christ recognizes baptism is not a cheap, worthless act given to people who are dead in their trespasses and sins without any thought. The body is reminded that God is a discerning God who holds his undershepherds to a high standard, not leaving them to undiscerned actions. We treat baptism as sacred to the faithful, not some cheap thing for the dead person to receive. And since you admit babies are born as sinners, you must admit they are born dead in their trespasses and sins.
Why do you baptized dead person's?

 

[MennoSota]

Then it's easy. Just quote the Bible as IT (not you) says, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless in your chronological time the recipient hath FIRST verbally and publicly stated that they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and to do otherwise is heretical, prohibited, invalid." If the Bible speaks for itself, then show where it itself says that. Easy.






Then you can prove it. Start with Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33.


Then show that YOU at least accept your own apologetic, that you NEVER do ANYTHING that is not exactly illustrated as done just like that in the Bible and ALL you do is exactly as was done in the Bible. YOu don't post on the internet. You don't Baptize people of Oriental or Asian races. You don't baptize anyone in a tank behind a curtain. You only use people of the Hebrew race to baptize. And of course, you don't give communion to women or children, you don't use grape juice, you don't use plastic cups in trays in Communion. And of course, you never use the internet. Since you don't accept the apologetic on which your entire argument rests, since you yourself reject it and don't follow it, it's just laughable to use it here.


Your whole argument is this: My dogma is true because the claim isn't shown as true "jibes" with a rule I reject as false.




.




.

There is no need to do as you request. It is a fools request.
What is easy is to observe what the Bible factually reveals about baptism.
Now, show a factual infant being factually baptized in the Bible. Since you cannot, you therefore advocate the baptism of humans who are dead in their trespasses and sins and have no faith.