Credobaptists - What about those with disabilities and baptism?

[Josiah]

Thanks for confirming my point.


And thanks for quoting the Scripture that so obviously does NOT say, "BUT for heaven's sake, NEVER go or baptize or teach any under the age of X (which I don't tell you what age that is)!!!!!" Or, "BUT you are forbidden to go, baptize or teach ANY unless they first have chanted the Sinner's Prayer, did the Altar Call thing, chose Me, and adequately and publicly proven their saving faith in Me! Don't you dare!" "I have commanding these things but they are a waste of time since I can't use them to accomplish anything at all, you really should be better stewards of your time and effort than do things that are a waste of time cuz I can't use them or do a thing with them."



.

When an individual is clearly recognized as redeemed and adopted by God and asks to be baptized, then the body of Christ baptizes them.

Well.... that's a practice of a tiny few Christian parishes for the last 500 years.

But you can't find a single verse that indicates it must be so and for some reason NO ONE in 1500 years ever noticed all those verses.

This is in accordance with the Great Commission

Obviously not.

every experience shared in the New Testament

Then why, pray tell, EVERY TIME you are given an example of baptism in the Bible and are ask to prove the recipient was over the age of X, had first documented their faith in Christ, had repented, and had publicly declared their choice of Jesus.... you ALWAYS ignore it, evade it and NEVER prove even one of those things. I think you know what you claim isn't the case.... I'm sure of it.

And it wouldn't matter if it was true, but I sure you know it's not which is why you ALWAYS evade every time when any gives you an example of baptisms and asks you to prove your claim - you always run, always evade it, always ignore it. You've done that so many times now it can't just be oversight.



.

 

[tango]

Credobaptists believe in a believers baptism and are against infants being baptized. What about the people with severe disabilities? They never receive baptism that Jesus told the disciples to go out and baptize all nations?

Neither did the thief on the cross who repented.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]

every experience shared in the New Testament

AGAIN, still again, yet again, still another time.... let's look at when people are baptized in the New Testament. Many times I and others have given you verses where folks are baptized and asked you to prove your point. Every time you've evaded, dodged, ignored, circumvented, and not replied.

Let's see if your claim is true....

Let's make it easy, let's take 4 of the examples you've been repeatedly asked to address....

1 Corinthians 1:16
Acts 10:24 Acts 10:48
Acts 16:15
Acts 16:33

Here we have examples of people being baptized recorded in the New Testament.

Now, it has been claimed by some that Baptism is forbidden EXCEPT when:

1. The receiver has first attained the age of X (the anti-paedo baptism folks)
2. The receiver has first chosen Jesus as their Savior and made a public witness of this choice and faith (the credo-baptism folks)
3. The reciever must first weep buckets of tears in public confession of sins
[COUNTLESS other mandates have been proposed but those are the major ones]

It has been claimed that EVERY EXAMPLE OF BAPTISM IN THE BIBLE has these 3 (or more) things (and that matters for some never stated reason).

Okay... Prove ANY of the 3 for ALL those who were baptized here..... Prove any one of the 3 for every person in the household of Stephanas, Corneilius, Lydia and the jailer. You've insisted for months that "every experience in the Bible" has these things, okay - this should be very easy for you. Or maybe your premise is, well, wrong?



Let's see if your rubic is wise (or even if you yourself accept it)?

You stress that it's the EXAMPLES in the NT that are our rule and norm, you keep CLAIMING things about those examples and using that as your basic and apologetic. Explain why you have chosen to ignore the command of the Word and replace it with the (supposed but entirely unsubstantiated) tradition of Christians? Why this rubric of "It's not what Jesus said but what people DID in the NT that is our rule!" Why are you looking to SOME (and totally ignoring other) examples and insisting, "We MUST do likewise and CAN'T do otherwise!" "We can't do what we don't see exampled in the NT!" And of course, you'll say essentially that while posting on the internet (something never exampled in the NT).



- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

Let's examine these passages.
1 Corinthians 1:14,16
[14]I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius,
[16](Oh yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas, but I don’t remember baptizing anyone else.)
Paul was thankful he did not baptize many of the Corinthians. Why?
*Acts of the Apostles 10:24,47-48
[24]They arrived in Caesarea the following day. Cornelius was waiting for them and had called together his relatives and close friends.
[47]“Can anyone object to their being baptized, now that they have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?”
[48]So he gave orders for them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Afterward Cornelius asked him to stay with them for several days.
What event preceded the question as to someone objecting to Cornelius and his friends being baptized? Is there a reason why baptism should not be done? There is a question, which implies that there are reasons baptism should not be done.
*Acts of the Apostles 16:15,31-34
[15]She and her household were baptized, and she asked us to be her guests. “If you agree that I am a true believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my home.” And she urged us until we agreed.
We have no idea what her household is comprised of or who was baptized. However, the condition was Paul's agreement that she was a believer.
[31]They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, along with everyone in your household.”
[32]And they shared the word of the Lord with him and with all who lived in his household.
[33]Even at that hour of the night, the jailer cared for them and washed their wounds. Then he and everyone in his household were immediately baptized.
[34]He brought them into his house and set a meal before them, and he and his entire household rejoiced because they all believed in God.
Again, we don't know what comprised the household. However, they believed. We do know they all rejoiced. Does an infant rejoice when it comprehends it's moment of salvation? One can surmise that the household here did not comprise infants. We see in earlier passages that there was option to object to a person's baptism, so we can conclude that baptism was not given to anyone at any time because someone else requested the baptism for that other person.
Therefore, infant baptism is a creation of ignorant Christians, not a practice established by God.

 

[Albion]

Neither did the thief on the cross who repented.

I am quite comfortable with the idea that anyone who literally has had a conversation with Christ and is absolved of his sins by Jesus is going to be or has been saved. How that helps the rest of humanity, I can't see. But I do know that he made provision for the rest of humanity.

 

[Josiah]

1 Corinthians 1:14,16
[14]I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius,
[16](Oh yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas, but I don’t remember baptizing anyone else.)

Your premise is that we must do ONLY what is exampled in the NT (and are forbidden to do what is NOT exampled).... and that "every receiver of baptism in the Bible" was...
1. The receivers were over the age of X
2. The receivers had previously chosen Jesus and made a public profession of this choice
3. The receivers first repented of their sins.

Okay.... we have a biblical record of people being baptized.... the househood of Stephanias.... So prove for each member of that household that:
1. The receivers are over the age of X
2. The receivers have previously chosen Jesus and made a public profession of this choice
3. The receivers first repented of their sins.


Or maybe your constant argument and premise is, well, false?

And maybe by your posting on the internet, you yourself don't believe your rubric that we can only do what is exampled in the NT and cannot do otherwise? Maybe that and that perhaps your church uses electricity, powerpoint, buildings, parking lots, websites, telephones, email? That perhaps it has a youth group, a ladies group, a youth pastor, a baptism dunk tank, bulletins, passes around little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and Welches Grape Juice, etc., etc., etc. ? All things not once exampled in the pages of the NT?

 

[Albion]

Sounds like an Anglican translation.

As a Lutheran myself (according to you) I can hardly take offense at that, even if it is a stupid comment.

 

[MennoSota]

Your premise is that we must do ONLY what is exampled in the NT (and are forbidden to do what is NOT exampled).... and that "every receiver of baptism in the Bible" was...
1. The receivers were over the age of X
2. The receivers had previously chosen Jesus and made a public profession of this choice
3. The receivers first repented of their sins.

Okay.... we have a biblical record of people being baptized.... the househood of Stephanias.... So prove for each member of that household that:
1. The receivers are over the age of X
2. The receivers have previously chosen Jesus and made a public profession of this choice
3. The receivers first repented of their sins.


Or maybe your constant argument and premise is, well, false?

And maybe by your posting on the internet, you yourself don't believe your rubric that we can only do what is exampled in the NT and cannot do otherwise? Maybe that and that perhaps your church uses electricity, powerpoint, buildings, parking lots, websites, telephones, email? That perhaps it has a youth group, a ladies group, a youth pastor, a baptism dunk tank, bulletins, passes around little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and Welches Grape Juice, etc., etc., etc. ? All things not once exampled in the pages of the NT?

I state that unless the Bible gives us the teaching we cannot claim it as a teaching from God.
I laid out, from the verses you provided, how baptism was addressed within God's word. If you wish to add a teaching not found in the Bible and claim it is from God, then I will be legitimately skeptical of your claim.

 

[meluckycharms]

Credobaptists believe in a believers baptism and are against infants being baptized. What about the people with severe disabilities? They never receive baptism that Jesus told the disciples to go out and baptize all nations?

 

[MennoSota]

Your premise is that we must do ONLY what is exampled in the NT (and are forbidden to do what is NOT exampled).... and that "every receiver of baptism in the Bible" was...

1. The receivers were over the age of X

You must type in "X" because I have made no such claim. I claim that every example we have in the Bible is the individual being saved first and then baptism is considered.

2. The receivers had previously chosen Jesus and made a public profession of this choice

Nope. God adopted the person and then baptism is called for by that believer or by the Apostle. What is never taught is baptize first then hope the person is adopted.

3. The receivers first repented of their sins.

Nope. The individual recognized that God had redeemed them by grace. Then baptism was an option.

Okay.... we have a biblical record of people being baptized.... the househood of Stephanias.... So prove for each member of that household that:
1. The receivers are over the age of X
2. The receivers have previously chosen Jesus and made a public profession of this choice
3. The receivers first repented of their sins.

I already went through the verses and explained my position and made my observations. I am not the one adding a mythical baby to the passage.

Or maybe your constant argument and premise is, well, false?

It's theoretically possible. However, I took the time to explain my position on each of the passages. You have made no biblical argument and established no support for your position within the text of scripture.

And maybe by your posting on the internet, you yourself don't believe your rubric that we can only do what is exampled in the NT and cannot do otherwise? Maybe that and that perhaps your church uses electricity, powerpoint, buildings, parking lots, websites, telephones, email? That perhaps it has a youth group, a ladies group, a youth pastor, a baptism dunk tank, bulletins, passes around little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and Welches Grape Juice, etc., etc., etc. ? All things not once exampled in the pages of the NT?

None of the examples you gave are related to a false teaching (baptismal regeneration) which has lead to millions upon millions of humans falsely believing they are adopted by God though their lives bear no fruit of such an adoption. These millions of people have faith in their infant baptism and church membership, but no relationship with God as their Father. Are you ready to be judged by God for teaching a lie that gives false hope to millions? My conscience is clean. I do not teach such a false doctrine.

 

[Albion]

None of the examples you gave are related to a false teaching (baptismal regeneration) which has lead to millions upon millions of humans falsely believing they are adopted by God though their lives bear no fruit of such an adoption. These millions of people have faith in their infant baptism and church membership, but no relationship with God as their Father. Are you ready to be judged by God for teaching a lie that gives false hope to millions? My conscience is clean. I do not teach such a false doctrine.

Well, that's simply because you don't understand the doctrine. That's not going to be taken as any kind of a counter-argument.

 

[MennoSota]

Well, that's simply because you don't understand the doctrine. That's not going to be taken as any kind of a counter-argument.

I don't understand because it is not biblical. It is a denominational dogma, not doctrine.

 

[Albion]

I don't understand because it is not biblical. It is a denominational dogma, not doctrine.

Nope. It is Biblical. Some denominations understand it correctly while other denominations and people who call themselves "non-denominational" do not, that's all.

 

[MennoSota]

Nope. It is Biblical. Some denominations understand it correctly while other denominations and people who call themselves "non-denominational" do not, that's all.

I've asked for biblical evidence. So far the text supplied is all developed from silence or over generalization. No clear text is presented anywhere in the Bible.

 

[psalms 91]

I've asked for biblical evidence. So far the text supplied is all developed from silence or over generalization. No clear text is presented anywhere in the Bible.

Personally I find non denom a lot more biblical than many denoms

 

[Albion]

I've asked for biblical evidence. So far the text supplied is all developed from silence or over generalization. No clear text is presented anywhere in the Bible.

Part of the problem, if you really want to know, is that you persistently misrepresent what the rest of us believe. And this despite having been corrected repeatedly.

Then you say that your version of things has no Biblical basis.

Honestly, there is no way to have a fruitful discussion under those circumstances.

 

[Josiah]

I claim that every example we have in the Bible is the individual being saved first and then baptism is considered.

Prove it for 1 Corinthians 1:16

What is never taught is baptize first then hope the person is adopted.

Perhaps, but as you've proven, it is never taught that a person FIRST chooses Christ, documents that publically, and only AFTER THAT may be considered for baptism.

I already went through the verses

And proved... NOT ONE supports these limitations and prohibitions of your position. NOTHING has been shown to prove that all Christians were wrong for 1500+ years on this because NOT ONE of them ever noticed the Scriptures that state, "BUT thou are forbidden to baptize any unless and until they have FIRST attained the age of X, hath wept buckets of tears in repentance, hath chosen Jesus as their Savior and hath made public testimony and proof of such." There's a reason not one Christian in over 1500 years never noticed that verse, my friend.....

You have not presented even ONE Scripture that states the limitations and prohibitions you have been promoting for weeks now in numerous threads.....

You have made no biblical argument and established no support for your position within the text of scripture

My position is that your premise is wrong: You continue to insist that EVERY case of persons baptized in the NT is of one who has FIRST chosen to believe in Jesus, made public testimony and proof of such and ONLY THEN, only AFTER THAT, as a CONSEQUENCE of that, was baptized. Well...... Let's start with 1 Corinthians 1:16..... Prove that every person in the household met that. Can't? Your claim is thus false, your premise destroyed.

And of course, since you don't accept that we can only do what is exampled in the NT, your whole argument is destroyed anyway - even if 1 Corinthians 1:16 stated, "And every one baptized had adequately chanted the Sinner's Prayer and responded to an Altar Call and proved their decision for Christ." Since you don't accept your own rubric, why should we? EVEN if you could show the practice you claim, which as we all know, you can't.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Personally I find non denom a lot more biblical than many denoms

Many at least have clear biblical passages. The disagreement comes in whether context has been taken into account or more so a difference in how context is viewed.

 

[MennoSota]

Part of the problem, if you really want to know, is that you persistently misrepresent what the rest of us believe. And this despite having been corrected repeatedly.

Then you say that your version of things has no Biblical basis.

Honestly, there is no way to have a fruitful discussion under those circumstances.

Provide biblical documentation of what you believe. What generally happens is some vague reference to a denominational dogma found in a catechism, concordia or other secondary source text.
Out primary text is the Bible. All secondary commentaries are only of value if they are strongly supported by the primary text.

 

[Josiah]

Many at least have clear biblical passages.

I'm looking for the one that states, "Thou art FORBIDDEN to baptize any unless and until that person hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and hath made public testimony of that decision." I'm looking for the one that states, "Baptism is stressed so very much, and is a part of the Great Commission equal to teaching because it is a worthless waste of time that doeth nothing." I'm looking for the verse that states, "Thou canst do NOTHING unless it is first exampled in the New Testament."

Your premise is that we can't baptize any who has not first chosen JEsus as their personal Savior and proven that publicly because - you keep repeating over and over and over - "That is the case with EVERY example of folks being baptized in the New Testament." Problem is, it's not (witness your evasion of 1 Corinthians 1:16 etc., etc.) and you don't accept your own rubric, you don't limit what you do to what is specially exampled in the NT so since you so completely reject your own premise, your own argument, your own rubric - why should we accept it?