Credobaptists - What about those with disabilities and baptism?

[MennoSota]

The biblical command says NOTHING about age.... and no one IMPOSED such via radical eisegesis flowing from their synergism... until a few German Anabaptists in the 16th Century. And yes, they've always refused to tell anyone what this age is, so it remands undeclared, undisclosed, mysterious - the age of X; the Anbaptist position is that Scripture dogmatically forbids those under that age from receiving baptism.


Yes, one of the Anabaptist/Baptist apologetics for their new invented dogma is that the word "and" (kai) dogmatically mandates chronological sequence, thus "repent and be baptized" mandates that FIRST the person must choose Jesus as their personal Savior and give adequate public proof of that, THEN - after that has been completed, the chronological sequence after that - THEN the prohibition from baptism is lifted. But of course, they are wrong (as they themselves believe).

The other Anabaptist/Baptist apologetic is that we are forbidden to do anything that is not clearly and consistently illustrated as having been done in the NT and because every case of baptism that happens to be recorded in the NT is of those who had FIRST celebrated their Xth birthday, FIRST chose Jesus as their personal savior and gave adequate public proof of that, FIRST wept X number of buckets of tears in repentance, FIRST declared baptism does nothing, FIRST publicly stated their desire to be baptized.... THEREFORE we must require that and can do no other. But of course, they are wrong (as they themselves believe).




- Josiah




.

Did you even read what atpollard wrote or do you just copy and paste your mythical argument whenever you see his name?
It's getting to the point that I think you're an Anabaptist who just likes saying Anabaptist, Anabaptist, Anabaptist.
If you actually read any of atpollard's comments you'd realize he's more Monergist, more Sola Scriptura, more Reformed than you are, Josiah.
It seems your syncretist Roman past is still fighting with you, desperately wanting a mythical infant means of grace via forced baptism as proof of security. You are throwing away scripture in order to cling to traditions of men.

 

[Josiah]

If you actually read any of atpollard's comments you'd realize he's more Monergist, more Sola Scriptura, more Reformed than you are, Josiah.

Yes, atpollard is more Calvinist than I am. What a profound statement on your part. Trying reading our respective faith icons. But he is very anti-Calvinist at points, including this one. Calvin actually supported infant baptism AND baptismal regeneration.


Yes, I've read the Anabaptist/Baptist apologetics for their new invention of dogma... yes, I know it was invented by radical synergists NOT because of any verse (which is why you have none to quote) but because the Lutheran view implied monergism and they were/are radical synergists.

Correct, neither of you can find any verse that supports the new dogma you are trying to defend... and the reason is obvious: there is none.


No. I don't agree that "we can only do what is clearly and consistently illustrated as having been done in the Bible and every case of baptism in the Bible is of those who FIRST celebrated their Xth birthday, FIRST chose Jesus as their personal savior and gave adequate public proof of that, FIRST wept a sufficient number of buckets of tears in repentance, FIRST declared that baptism does nothing and FIRST requested to be baptized - thus baptism is forbidden to all who don't first meet all these dogmatic prrequisites." I disagree with the premise/rubric (as do you) and with the conclusion. Thus, I reject your point about "Where is there an example of any under the age of X being baptized in the Bible?" "No babies were ever baptized!" Etc. All your endless, perpetual, never-ending statements of this silly apologetic that even you reject. Thus, you constantly shoot yourself in the foot as you constantly parrot this point - BY POSTING ON THE INTERNET (go figure! You are laughable every time you do this and CLEARLY don't see how you are shooting yourself in the foot - clearly rejected YOUR OWN POINT).


No. I don't agree that God cannot bless those who are unable to do their part in the salvation of themselves. Being a monergist, I think this point irrelevant. Thus I reject your point about "But how can babies believe?" "How can babies choose Jesus?" "How can babies give adequate public proof of they having first chosen Jesus as their savior" You know, all your endless, perpetual, never-ending statements of this synergistic argument. Thus, you keep shooting yourself in the foot, insisting babies ( being dead and totally deprived) MUST perform all these various prerequisite good works BEFORE God can bless them. Either you aren't a monergist and aren't Reformed... or you passionately disagree with YOUR OWN POINT.


I don't disagree with your point that if one is going to invent a brand new, radically different dogma out of thin air after 1500 years, it's good to have solid biblical substantiation. But that's where you keep shooting yourself in the foot. But it is OBVIOUS to everyone (I'm POSITIVE that includes you) that you have nothing.... absolutely nothing.... not a single verse that remotely states, "Baptism is forbidden and prohibited to all UNLESS the receiver FIRST has celebrated their Xth birthday, FIRST has wept an adequate number of buckets of tears in repentance and given public proof of that, FIRST chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and given adequate proof of that, FIRST declared that baptism is a waste of water and time, and FIRST publicly declared their desire to be baptized." Friend, if you had Scripture that stated any of that, you would have quoted the verse(s) by now..... and of course, you haven't even attempted to do that... and the reason is obvious to all (including you): no such verse(s) exist. You've dramatically and consistently proven it. Thus, you shoot yourself in the foot when you declare we MUST have such substantiation but you have NOTHING.



You are throwing away scripture in order to cling to traditions of men. You have perfectly and verbatim parroted the words of the RADICAL SYNERGISTS who invented this new dogma out of nothing in 1523..... and like them, have not offered ONE SCRIPTURE that remotely states ANYTHING that you do on this point. Thing is: the inventors were radical synergists - and their dogma makes sense from that perspective. But you claim to be a monergist and thus you just keep shooting yourself in the foot.... over and over and over and over. And while it's OBVIOUS, I don't think you STILL see it.





.

 

[MennoSota]

Yes, atpollard is more Calvinist than I am. What a profound statement on your part. Trying reading our respective faith icons. But he is very anti-Calvinist at points, including this one. Calvin actually supported infant baptism AND baptismal regeneration.


Yes, I've read the Anabaptist/Baptist apologetics for their new invention of dogma... yes, I know it was invented by radical synergists NOT because of any verse (which is why you have none to quote) but because the Lutheran view implied monergism and they were/are radical synergists.

Correct, neither of you can find any verse that supports the new dogma you are trying to defend... and the reason is obvious: there is none.


No. I don't agree that "we can only do what is clearly and consistently illustrated as having been done in the Bible and every case of baptism in the Bible is of those who FIRST celebrated their Xth birthday, FIRST chose Jesus as their personal savior and gave adequate public proof of that, FIRST wept a sufficient number of buckets of tears in repentance, FIRST declared that baptism does nothing and FIRST requested to be baptized - thus baptism is forbidden to all who don't first meet all these dogmatic prrequisites." I disagree with the premise/rubric (as do you) and with the conclusion. Thus, I reject your point about "Where is there an example of any under the age of X being baptized in the Bible?" "No babies were ever baptized!" Etc. All your endless, perpetual, never-ending statements of this silly apologetic that even you reject. Thus, you constantly shoot yourself in the foot as you constantly parrot this point - BY POSTING ON THE INTERNET (go figure! You are laughable every time you do this and CLEARLY don't see how you are shooting yourself in the foot - clearly rejected YOUR OWN POINT).


No. I don't agree that God cannot bless those who are unable to do their part in the salvation of themselves. Being a monergist, I think this point irrelevant. Thus I reject your point about "But how can babies believe?" "How can babies choose Jesus?" "How can babies give adequate public proof of they having first chosen Jesus as their savior" You know, all your endless, perpetual, never-ending statements of this synergistic argument. Thus, you keep shooting yourself in the foot, insisting babies ( being dead and totally deprived) MUST perform all these various prerequisite good works BEFORE God can bless them. Either you aren't a monergist and aren't Reformed... or you passionately disagree with YOUR OWN POINT.


I don't disagree with your point that if one is going to invent a brand new, radically different dogma out of thin air after 1500 years, it's good to have solid biblical substantiation. But that's where you keep shooting yourself in the foot. But it is OBVIOUS to everyone (I'm POSITIVE that includes you) that you have nothing.... absolutely nothing.... not a single verse that remotely states, "Baptism is forbidden and prohibited to all UNLESS the receiver FIRST has celebrated their Xth birthday, FIRST has wept an adequate number of buckets of tears in repentance and given public proof of that, FIRST chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and given adequate proof of that, FIRST declared that baptism is a waste of water and time, and FIRST publicly declared their desire to be baptized." Friend, if you had Scripture that stated any of that, you would have quoted the verse(s) by now..... and of course, you haven't even attempted to do that... and the reason is obvious to all (including you): no such verse(s) exist. You've dramatically and consistently proven it. Thus, you shoot yourself in the foot when you declare we MUST have such substantiation but you have NOTHING.



You are throwing away scripture in order to cling to traditions of men. You have perfectly and verbatim parroted the words of the RADICAL SYNERGISTS who invented this new dogma out of nothing in 1523..... and like them, have not offered ONE SCRIPTURE that remotely states ANYTHING that you do on this point. Thing is: the inventors were radical synergists - and their dogma makes sense from that perspective. But you claim to be a monergist and thus you just keep shooting yourself in the foot.... over and over and over and over. And while it's OBVIOUS, I don't think you STILL see it.





.

No new inventions, Josiah, just Sola Scriptura. atpollard and I have spoke to what the scripture says...nothing more and nothing less.
I have already stated that Calvin and Luther got things wrong. They are a product of their biased culture. I don't despise them for it, I just acknowledge it.
Josiah, your crutch is your dependence on tradition at the exclusion of scripture. This is how you end up recycling your myth. You can't get you head out of the 1500s and focus solely upon scripture. I'm not sure why it's so hard for you. I suspect it is the only way you can prop up the crutch for your misguided argument. Until you are capable of throwing away your crutch you will always revert to your recycled myth as your means of avoiding scripture.

 

[Josiah]

No new inventions, Josiah, just Sola Scriptura.

Wrong. NO ONE suggested anti-Paedobaptism or Credobaptism until a handful of German wackedoodles invented it and declared it Dogma in 1523. And yes they did so as an application of their radical synergism (they didn't have a single verse to support their new invention - they could find even one, just as you can't). But they did have their radical synergism, and their invention in 1523 makes sense from that perspective, but it sure creates a situation for monergist where they constantly shoot themselves in the foot, making statements they clearly don't accept themselves.


Wrong. If you had even one verse that states what the Anabaptists/Baptists invented on this in 1523, you would have quoted it by now. But those synergists who invented it had not one.... and nor do you. Just 3 silly apologetics that even you reject but think others should accept.




Without even one verse, Anabaptists/Baptists use 3 arguments to support their new dogma invention (NONE from Scripture... NONE existing before 1523)...


1. The koine Greek word "kai" (and) MUST DOGMATICALLY mandate chronological sequence. Of course, this is just grammatically wrong (and actually creates a LOT of problems) They know this is wrong but they use it anyway. Thus all the posts in this thread, "It says repent and be baptized so repentance must happen FIRST" Etc. There are at least 3 koine Greek words that imply sequence but none of those appear in any verse where baptism is even mentioned. Thus your constant appeal to the word "and" in the Bible and dogmatic insistence it MUST mandate chronological sequence. It's really very silly.


2. What Scripture teaches isn't the norm for dogma but rather the illustrations it records of what was clearly and consistently DONE. We can only do what was clearly and consistently done. And since EVERY case of baptism that just happens to be recorded in the NT is of those who FIRST celebrated their Xth birthday, FIRST chose Jesus as their personal Savior and gave adequate public proof of that, FIRST wept an adequate number of buckets of tears in repentance and gave adequate public proof of that, FIRST declared that baptism does nothing and FIRST gave adequate public proof of their requesting to be baptized..... therefore, baptism is forbidden to all who have not met these mandates. But of course, you reject the entire argument (you prove it every time you state it on the internet) and of course, it's outright false - it simply isn't true (as those "and their household" verses prove). Thus your constant appeal to tradition and to what you feel was and wasn't done - while you post on the internet which of course was NEVER done in the Bible.


3. Babies can't be blessed by God because they are not yet capable of doing the works they FIRST must do so that God THEN can bless them. This was the main Anabaptist apologetic. Thus your constant point about "babies can't this.... babies can't that....."

atpollard and I have spoke to what the scripture says...nothing more and nothing less.

Everyone knows this is just silly.... You have not even ATTEMPTED - in all these months - to quote even one Scripture that teaches even ONE of the things you've been saying about baptism. Not even once. Haven't even TRIED to.


Just give the reference for each of the following....

"Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until this list of prerequisites hath FIRST been accomplished by the receiver."
"Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until the receiver hath FIRST celebrated their Xth birthday."
"Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until the receiver hath FIRST chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and given adequate public proof of that."
"Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until the receiver hath FIRST wept an adequate number of buckets of tears in repentance and given adequate public proof of that."
"Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until the receiver hath FIRST given adequate public proof of their desiring to be baptized."
"Baptism accomplishes nothing. God cannot and does not use baptism for anything."

You claim that you have given the reference to these.... but you have not. You keep INSISTING it is necessary to do it but you haven't. You haven't even tried to, you haven't even attempted it. And we all know why. You just keep (accurately, I admit) parroting the 3 apologetics of the Anabaptist/Baptist denomination, placing its new and unique tradition above Scripture.




- Josiah





.

 

[MennoSota]

Wrong. NO ONE suggested anti-Paedobaptism or Credobaptism until a handful of German wackedoodles invented it and declared it Dogma in 1523. And yes they did so as an application of their radical synergism (they didn't have a single verse to support their new invention - they could find even one, just as you can't). But they did have their radical synergism, and their invention in 1523 makes sense from that perspective, but it sure creates a situation for monergist where they constantly shoot themselves in the foot, making statements they clearly don't accept themselves.


Wrong. If you had even one verse that states what the Anabaptists/Baptists invented on this in 1523, you would have quoted it by now. But those synergists who invented it had not one.... and nor do you. Just 3 silly apologetics that even you reject but think others should accept.




Without even one verse, Anabaptists/Baptists use 3 arguments to support their new dogma invention (NONE from Scripture... NONE existing before 1523)...


1. The koine Greek word "kai" (and) MUST DOGMATICALLY mandate chronological sequence. Of course, this is just grammatically wrong (and actually creates a LOT of problems) They know this is wrong but they use it anyway. Thus all the posts in this thread, "It says repent and be baptized so repentance must happen FIRST" Etc. There are at least 3 koine Greek words that imply sequence but none of those appear in any verse where baptism is even mentioned. Thus your constant appeal to the word "and" in the Bible and dogmatic insistence it MUST mandate chronological sequence. It's really very silly.


2. What Scripture teaches isn't the norm for dogma but rather the illustrations it records of what was clearly and consistently DONE. We can only do what was clearly and consistently done. And since EVERY case of baptism that just happens to be recorded in the NT is of those who FIRST celebrated their Xth birthday, FIRST chose Jesus as their personal Savior and gave adequate public proof of that, FIRST wept an adequate number of buckets of tears in repentance and gave adequate public proof of that, FIRST declared that baptism does nothing and FIRST gave adequate public proof of their requesting to be baptized..... therefore, baptism is forbidden to all who have not met these mandates. But of course, you reject the entire argument (you prove it every time you state it on the internet) and of course, it's outright false - it simply isn't true (as those "and their household" verses prove). Thus your constant appeal to tradition and to what you feel was and wasn't done - while you post on the internet which of course was NEVER done in the Bible.


3. Babies can't be blessed by God because they are not yet capable of doing the works they FIRST must do so that God THEN can bless them. This was the main Anabaptist apologetic. Thus your constant point about "babies can't this.... babies can't that....."








Everyone knows this is just silly.... You have not even ATTEMPTED - in all these months - to quote even one Scripture that teaches even ONE of the things you've been saying about baptism. Not even once. Haven't even TRIED to.


Just give the reference for each of the following....

"Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until this list of prerequisites hath FIRST been accomplished by the receiver."
"Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until the receiver hath FIRST celebrated their Xth birthday."
"Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until the receiver hath FIRST chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and given adequate public proof of that."
"Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until the receiver hath FIRST wept an adequate number of buckets of tears in repentance and given adequate public proof of that."
"Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until the receiver hath FIRST given adequate public proof of their desiring to be baptized."
"Baptism accomplishes nothing. God cannot and does not use baptism for anything."

You claim that you have given the reference to these.... but you have not. You keep INSISTING it is necessary to do it but you haven't. You haven't even tried to, you haven't even attempted it. And we all know why. You just keep (accurately, I admit) parroting the 3 apologetics of the Anabaptist/Baptist denomination, placing its new and unique tradition above Scripture.




- Josiah





.

Again...myth from you.
What does the scriptures say? I don't care about some man-made title of paedo, creodo, paleontological baptism. I care what scripture shares.

 

[Josiah]

Wrong. NO ONE suggested anti-Paedobaptism or Credobaptism until a handful of German wackedoodles invented it and declared it Dogma in 1523. And yes they did so as an application of their radical synergism (they didn't have a single verse to support their new invention - they could find even one, just as you can't). But they did have their radical synergism, and their invention in 1523 makes sense from that perspective, but it sure creates a situation for monergist where they constantly shoot themselves in the foot, making statements they clearly don't accept themselves.


Wrong. If you had even one verse that states what the Anabaptists/Baptists invented on this in 1523, you would have quoted it by now. But those synergists who invented it had not one.... and nor do you. Just 3 silly apologetics that even you reject but think others should accept.




Without even one verse, Anabaptists/Baptists use 3 arguments to support their new dogma invention (NONE from Scripture... NONE existing before 1523)...


1. The koine Greek word "kai" (and) MUST DOGMATICALLY mandate chronological sequence. Of course, this is just grammatically wrong (and actually creates a LOT of problems) They know this is wrong but they use it anyway. Thus all the posts in this thread, "It says repent and be baptized so repentance must happen FIRST" Etc. There are at least 3 koine Greek words that imply sequence but none of those appear in any verse where baptism is even mentioned. Thus your constant appeal to the word "and" in the Bible and dogmatic insistence it MUST mandate chronological sequence. It's really very silly.


2. What Scripture teaches isn't the norm for dogma but rather the illustrations it records of what was clearly and consistently DONE. We can only do what was clearly and consistently done. And since EVERY case of baptism that just happens to be recorded in the NT is of those who FIRST celebrated their Xth birthday, FIRST chose Jesus as their personal Savior and gave adequate public proof of that, FIRST wept an adequate number of buckets of tears in repentance and gave adequate public proof of that, FIRST declared that baptism does nothing and FIRST gave adequate public proof of their requesting to be baptized..... therefore, baptism is forbidden to all who have not met these mandates. But of course, you reject the entire argument (you prove it every time you state it on the internet) and of course, it's outright false - it simply isn't true (as those "and their household" verses prove). Thus your constant appeal to tradition and to what you feel was and wasn't done - while you post on the internet which of course was NEVER done in the Bible.


3. Babies can't be blessed by God because they are not yet capable of doing the works they FIRST must do so that God THEN can bless them. This was the main Anabaptist apologetic. Thus your constant point about "babies can't this.... babies can't that....."








Everyone knows this is just silly.... You have not even ATTEMPTED - in all these months - to quote even one Scripture that teaches even ONE of the things you've been saying about baptism. Not even once. Haven't even TRIED to. Just give the reference for each of the following....

"Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until this list of prerequisites hath FIRST been accomplished by the receiver."
"Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until the receiver hath FIRST celebrated their Xth birthday."
"Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until the receiver hath FIRST chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and given adequate public proof of that."
"Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until the receiver hath FIRST wept an adequate number of buckets of tears in repentance and given adequate public proof of that."
"Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until the receiver hath FIRST given adequate public proof of their desiring to be baptized."
"Baptism accomplishes nothing. God cannot and does not use baptism for anything."


You claim that you have given the reference to these.... but you have not. You keep INSISTING it is necessary to do it but you haven't. You haven't even tried to, you haven't even attempted it. And we all know why. You just keep (accurately, I admit) parroting the 3 apologetics of the Anabaptist/Baptist denomination, placing its new and unique tradition above Scripture.




- Josiah





.

I care what scripture shares.

Then you'll note the obvious: You have NOT ONE VERSE that teaches even ONE part of the Anabaptists/Baptists invented dogma. Not one. For anything. You just verbatim parrot the Anabaptist/Baptist tradition, over and over and over (for 43 pages in this thread alone).... SHOUTING how you dismiss all unless it's taught in Scripture and then PROVING you have not one Scripture to support even one aspect of the new dogma you are defending..... just pure (new, denominational) tradition and no Scripture.

 

[MennoSota]

Then you'll note the obvious: You have NOT ONE VERSE that teaches even ONE part of the Anabaptists/Baptists invented dogma. Not one. For anything. You just verbatim parrot the Anabaptist/Baptist tradition, over and over and over (for 43 pages in this thread alone).... SHOUTING how you dismiss all unless it's taught in Scripture and then PROVING you have not one Scripture to support even one aspect of the new dogma you are defending..... just pure (new, denominational) tradition and no Scripture.

Your statement is false. Verse after verse has been shared as to why baptism takes place after conversion/adoption. For you to claim otherwise is utterly false.
The text of scripture never once mentions infant baptism. Not once. It mentions households a couple of times, but it never identifies the people in the house. This is fact, Josiah. It has nothing to do with your mythical narrative. It has everything to do with observing scripture.
Your lies tire me, Josiah.

 

[Josiah]

Wrong. NO ONE suggested anti-Paedobaptism or Credobaptism until a handful of German wackedoodles invented it and declared it Dogma in 1523. And yes they did so as an application of their radical synergism (they didn't have a single verse to support their new invention - they could find even one, just as you can't). But they did have their radical synergism, and their invention in 1523 makes sense from that perspective, but it sure creates a situation for monergist where they constantly shoot themselves in the foot, making statements they clearly don't accept themselves.


Wrong. If you had even one verse that states what the Anabaptists/Baptists invented on this in 1523, you would have quoted it by now. But those synergists who invented it had not one.... and nor do you. Just 3 silly apologetics that even you reject but think others should accept.




Without even one verse, Anabaptists/Baptists use 3 arguments to support their new dogma invention (NONE from Scripture... NONE existing before 1523)...


1. The koine Greek word "kai" (and) MUST DOGMATICALLY mandate chronological sequence. Of course, this is just grammatically wrong (and actually creates a LOT of problems) They know this is wrong but they use it anyway. Thus all the posts in this thread, "It says repent and be baptized so repentance must happen FIRST" Etc. There are at least 3 koine Greek words that imply sequence but none of those appear in any verse where baptism is even mentioned. Thus your constant appeal to the word "and" in the Bible and dogmatic insistence it MUST mandate chronological sequence. It's really very silly.


2. What Scripture teaches isn't the norm for dogma but rather the illustrations it records of what was clearly and consistently DONE. We can only do what was clearly and consistently done. And since EVERY case of baptism that just happens to be recorded in the NT is of those who FIRST celebrated their Xth birthday, FIRST chose Jesus as their personal Savior and gave adequate public proof of that, FIRST wept an adequate number of buckets of tears in repentance and gave adequate public proof of that, FIRST declared that baptism does nothing and FIRST gave adequate public proof of their requesting to be baptized..... therefore, baptism is forbidden to all who have not met these mandates. But of course, you reject the entire argument (you prove it every time you state it on the internet) and of course, it's outright false - it simply isn't true (as those "and their household" verses prove). Thus your constant appeal to tradition and to what you feel was and wasn't done - while you post on the internet which of course was NEVER done in the Bible.


3. Babies can't be blessed by God because they are not yet capable of doing the works they FIRST must do so that God THEN can bless them. This was the main Anabaptist apologetic. Thus your constant point about "babies can't this.... babies can't that....."



Everyone knows this is just silly.... You have not even ATTEMPTED - in all these months - to quote even one Scripture that teaches even ONE of the things you've been saying about baptism. Not even once. Haven't even TRIED to. Just give the reference for each of the following....

"Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until this list of prerequisites hath FIRST been accomplished by the receiver."
"Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until the receiver hath FIRST celebrated their Xth birthday."
"Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until the receiver hath FIRST chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and given adequate public proof of that."
"Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until the receiver hath FIRST wept an adequate number of buckets of tears in repentance and given adequate public proof of that."
"Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until the receiver hath FIRST given adequate public proof of their desiring to be baptized."
"Baptism accomplishes nothing. God cannot and does not use baptism for anything."


You claim that you have given the reference to these.... but you have not. You keep INSISTING it is necessary to do it but you haven't. You haven't even tried to, you haven't even attempted it. And we all know why. You just keep (accurately, I admit) parroting the 3 apologetics of the Anabaptist/Baptist denomination, placing its new and unique tradition above Scripture.




- Josiah

Verse after verse has been shared as to why baptism takes place after conversion/adoption. For you to claim otherwise is utterly false

MennoSota ,

Wrong. Your statement is utterly false. You have not supplied even one verse that states even one point of the new Anabaptist/Baptist dogma on this. Not one. You haven't even ATTEMPTED to.


All you've done is chant and parrot verbatim the new, dogmatic denominational tradition of the Anabaptist/Baptist invention here. Just repeating verbatim the 3 apologetic points - all of which you reject and are obviously wrong but you chant the spin anyway.

What is curious is your constant rant that we must not accept dogmas that are not clearly TAUGHT in Scripture and must reject denominational interpretations and tradition .... while all you do is parrot (perfectly, I admit) your denomination's new tradition and don't even attempt to give even one Scripture that states even one of the points of the Anabaptist Tradition on this. You haven't even tried.

it has been shared as to why baptism takes place after conversion/adoption

Wrong.

You have not even ATTEMPTED to quote a verse that states that baptism is forbidden until the receiver FIRST chooses Jesus as their personal Savior and gives adequate public proof of that. You've not quoted even one verse that states this prerequisite and dogmatic mandate. Yes, you have given a few examples where that seems to be the case but that has NOTHING to do with supporting the dogma, it's just a silly apologetic you prove you reject by stating on the internet (a practice that NEVER is illustrated as happening in the NT).

The text of scripture never once mentions infant baptism. Not once.

The text of Scripture never once mentions infants being forbidden from baptism and teaching..... never once mentions blonde haired persons or Americans or fat people or Baptist people being forbidden from baptism - or being permitted to baptism. It never once mentions any Gentile ever baptizing anyone.... See, friend, IF you accepted your own point - even a tiny little bit - you'd have some credence, but since you reject your whole premise that we can't do what is not illustrated as being done in the Bible, then sorry you can't use that as an apologetic - especially for some radical new DOGMA created out of thin air by a couple of German wackedoodle radical synergists in 1523, NOT because of any verse (they couldn't find any either) but because it seemed IMPLIED by their radical synergism.


You claim we must reject denominational Tradition - yet that's ALL you give. You claim there needs to be clear TEACHING supporting dogma, fine. Then just supply the references for each of the following verses: "Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until this list of prerequisites hath FIRST been accomplished by the receiver." "Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until the receiver hath FIRST celebrated their Xth birthday." "Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until the receiver hath FIRST chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and given adequate public proof of that." "Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until the receiver hath FIRST wept an adequate number of buckets of tears in repentance and given adequate public proof of that." "Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until the receiver hath FIRST given adequate public proof of their desiring to be baptized." "Baptism accomplishes nothing. God cannot and does not use baptism for anything." But I think you know.... the Bible teaches NO SUCH THING.




- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

MennoSota ,

Wrong. Your statement is utterly false. You have not supplied even one verse that states even one point of the new Anabaptist/Baptist dogma on this. Not one. You haven't even ATTEMPTED to.


All you've done is chant and parrot verbatim the new, dogmatic denominational tradition of the Anabaptist/Baptist invention here. Just repeating verbatim the 3 apologetic points - all of which you reject and are obviously wrong but you chant the spin anyway.

What is curious is your constant rant that we must not accept dogmas that are not clearly TAUGHT in Scripture and must reject denominational interpretations and tradition .... while all you do is parrot (perfectly, I admit) your denomination's new tradition and don't even attempt to give even one Scripture that states even one of the points of the Anabaptist Tradition on this. You haven't even tried.







Wrong.

You have not even ATTEMPTED to quote a verse that states that baptism is forbidden until the receiver FIRST chooses Jesus as their personal Savior and gives adequate public proof of that. You've not quoted even one verse that states this prerequisite and dogmatic mandate. Yes, you have given a few examples where that seems to be the case but that has NOTHING to do with supporting the dogma, it's just a silly apologetic you prove you reject by stating on the internet (a practice that NEVER is illustrated as happening in the NT).







The text of Scripture never once mentions infants being forbidden from baptism and teaching..... never once mentions blonde haired persons or Americans or fat people or Baptist people being forbidden from baptism - or being permitted to baptism. It never once mentions any Gentile ever baptizing anyone.... See, friend, IF you accepted your own point - even a tiny little bit - you'd have some credence, but since you reject your whole premise that we can't do what is not illustrated as being done in the Bible, then sorry you can't use that as an apologetic - especially for some radical new DOGMA created out of thin air by a couple of German wackedoodle radical synergists in 1523, NOT because of any verse (they couldn't find any either) but because it seemed IMPLIED by their radical synergism.


You claim we must reject denominational Tradition - yet that's ALL you give. You claim there needs to be clear TEACHING supporting dogma, fine. Then just supply the references for each of the following verses: "Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until this list of prerequisites hath FIRST been accomplished by the receiver." "Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until the receiver hath FIRST celebrated their Xth birthday." "Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until the receiver hath FIRST chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and given adequate public proof of that." "Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until the receiver hath FIRST wept an adequate number of buckets of tears in repentance and given adequate public proof of that." "Baptism art forbidden and prohibited unless and until the receiver hath FIRST given adequate public proof of their desiring to be baptized." "Baptism accomplishes nothing. God cannot and does not use baptism for anything." But I think you know.... the Bible teaches NO SUCH THING.




- Josiah




.

https://youtu.be/Hkw8wSu7tN8

 

[Lamb]

If anyone has anything to say with scriptural back up then please add it. Otherwise, we can do without the pages of you're wrong because you're wrong and you're wrong because you're wrong too.

 

[Josiah]

MennoSota,

Just TRYING to give you an opportunity to contribute something.... to defend the new Anabaptist dogma you are so obsessed with proclaiming.

You insist we are to all ignore denominational tradition - but that's ALL YOU DO on this topic, verbatim parroting the new unique tradition of the Anabaptist/Baptist denomination on this point. Over and over and over and over and over. For months now. Chanting the 3 silly points you yourself reject but parrot anyway.

You insist we are to ONLY consider the teaching words of Scripture in dogma but you refuse to do that, consistently REFUSING to quote a single Scripture stating even one point of the new Anabaptist/Baptists dogma here. For over 40 pages in just this thread, folks have been asking you for the references for all these things (since you insist we are to reject points without Scripture teaching the same thing) but you refuse to do so. Seriously, I think it is obvious why you can't supply the verses.

What is clear is that you keep shooting yourself in the foot on this topic. I think perhaps because you are just parroting denominational tradition and haven't (AND WON'T) think it through. You keep parroting point... revealing you disagree with the point.... but use the apologetic you reject. You keep insisting we must have Scripture teaching what we are and keep proving you have NOTHING AT ALL that does that. You keep insisting we are to reject denominational tradition but ALL you have is the (accurate, I admit) parroting of this new tradition of your denomination. Over and over, you just shoot yourself in the foot.

See, if you were a radical syneregist like those handful of German wackedoodles who invented this new dogma, there would be a certain "sense" to this. They had no verses either but it does make sense from the position of radical synergism. But since you claim to be a monergist, you are left with nothing. Nothing at all. Which is why you have to resort to the things you post. NORMALLY, long before this, a poster would realize how they are just shooting themselves in the foot and since they have NOTHING, they'd exit the conversation so as not to.... well.... you know.

 

[atpollard]

If anyone has anything to say with scriptural back up then please add it. Otherwise, we can do without the pages of you're wrong because you're wrong and you're wrong because you're wrong too.

MennoSota,

Just TRYING to give you an opportunity to contribute something.... to defend the new Anabaptist dogma you are so obsessed with proclaiming.

You insist we are to all ignore denominational tradition - but that's ALL YOU DO on this topic, verbatim parroting the new unique tradition of the Anabaptist/Baptist denomination on this point. Over and over and over and over and over. For months now. Chanting the 3 silly points you yourself reject but parrot anyway.

You insist we are to ONLY consider the teaching words of Scripture in dogma but you refuse to do that, consistently REFUSING to quote a single Scripture stating even one point of the new Anabaptist/Baptists dogma here. For over 40 pages in just this thread, folks have been asking you for the references for all these things (since you insist we are to reject points without Scripture teaching the same thing) but you refuse to do so. Seriously, I think it is obvious why you can't supply the verses.

What is clear is that you keep shooting yourself in the foot on this topic. I think perhaps because you are just parroting denominational tradition and haven't (AND WON'T) think it through. You keep parroting point... revealing you disagree with the point.... but use the apologetic you reject. You keep insisting we must have Scripture teaching what we are and keep proving you have NOTHING AT ALL that does that. You keep insisting we are to reject denominational tradition but ALL you have is the (accurate, I admit) parroting of this new tradition of your denomination. Over and over, you just shoot yourself in the foot.

See, if you were a radical syneregist like those handful of German wackedoodles who invented this new dogma, there would be a certain "sense" to this. They had no verses either but it does make sense from the position of radical synergism. But since you claim to be a monergist, you are left with nothing. Nothing at all. Which is why you have to resort to the things you post. NORMALLY, long before this, a poster would realize how they are just shooting themselves in the foot and since they have NOTHING, they'd exit the conversation so as not to.... well.... you know.

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]
You forgot the Scriptural Backup for your post.

 

[MennoSota]

What is "new Anabaptist/Baptists dogma?" Is it found in a concord or catechism? I'm wondering where this dogma is found that I have been taking from every verse about baptism found in the Bible. Since it is dogma, it must be written in some document somewhere. But, where?

 

[Josiah]

.

 

[Josiah]

What is "new Anabaptist/Baptists dogma?"

Anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism. It is THE singular distinctive, defining dogma of Baptists like you, a dogma invented out-of-the-blue in the early 16th Century by a couple of Germans. They had no Scripture to support their newly invented dogma, but it was consistent with their radical synergism. It is defended with 3 points. The points you have been parroting perfectly.

I have been taking from every verse about baptism found in the Bible.

Which is why in all these months... in your very many posts on this.... you've not come up with even one verse that supports even one point you've been making. It's not taught in Scripture - none of it. As you've been proving. No one ever claimed that anti-Paedobaptism/Credobaptism is taught in the Bible (not even the Anabaptists/Baptists who invented it so claimed), it's an implication of radical synergism. Since you claim to be a monergists, you thus have nothing. As you've proven.


You have perfectly parroted the Anabaptist/Baptist denominational tradition (which you insist we should ignore - thus ignore all your posts on this). You have given not one Scripture that teaches even one aspect of the new Anabaptist/Baptist dogma (which you insist is the only thing we should consider but which you can't supply because none exists).

You forgot the Scriptural Backup for your post

I offered no dogma. What Scripture would you suggest I quote that would support nothing? Looking at this new Anabaptist dogma, perhaps this verse is most appropriate for me to quote: John 11:35



- Josiah

 

[MennoSota]

Anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism. It is THE singular distinctive, defining dogma of Baptists like you, a dogma invented out-of-the-blue in the early 16th Century by a couple of Germans. They had no Scripture to support their newly invented dogma, but it was consistent with their radical synergism. It is defended with 3 points. The points you have been parroting perfectly.




Which is why in all these months... in your very many posts on this.... you've not come up with even one verse that supports even one point you've been making. It's not taught in Scripture - none of it. As you've been proving. No one ever claimed that anti-Paedobaptism/Credobaptism is taught in the Bible (not even the Anabaptists/Baptists who invented it so claimed), it's an implication of radical synergism. Since you claim to be a monergists, you thus have nothing. As you've proven.


You have perfectly parroted the Anabaptist/Baptist denominational tradition (which you insist we should ignore - thus ignore all your posts on this). You have given not one Scripture that teaches even one aspect of the new Anabaptist/Baptist dogma (which you insist is the only thing we should consider but which you can't supply because none exists).






I offered no dogma. What Scripture would you suggest I quote that would support nothing? Looking at this new Anabaptist dogma, perhaps this verse is most appropriate for me to quote:

Can you find these terms, Anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism, in any Baptist concord, catechism or statement in Baptist denominations? It seems you are hung up on a issue of your own creation.
atpollard and I have just focused upon the texts of scripture, which never once mention infant baptism. Not once.
Your constant deflection is to ignore the Bible and make claims that you alone believe. Truth...you're living in a fantasy world with your argument, Josiah.
Show me where an infant is being baptized in scripture and you can convince me that baptism is to be done before a person can express their faith. If you cannot show an infant being baptized then admit it doesn't exist in scripture. It's really that simple.

 

[Josiah]

I have just focused upon the texts of scripture, which never once mention infant baptism. Not once. Show me where an infant is being baptized in scripture and you can convince me that baptism is to be done before a person can express their faith. If you cannot show an infant being baptized then admit it doesn't exist in scripture. It's really that simple.

Okay.... so you say "infant being baptized" and not "infant baptism" Seems the same to me....

Show me where an infant is being baptized in scripture and you can convince me that baptism is to be done before a person can express their faith. If you cannot show an infant being baptized then admit it doesn't exist in scripture. It's really that simple.

Show me where an American is baptized in Scripture. If you cannot than you admit it doesn't exist in Scripture but you wouldn't present ANYTHING that it's dogmatically prohibited or even not to be done.

Show me where a Gentile baptized anyone in Scripture. If you cannot then you admit it never happened in Scripture but you wouldn't present ANYTHING that it's dogmatically prohibited to be done or even that it's not great for this to happen.

Show me where anyone posts on the internet in Scripture. If you cannot then you admit it doesn't exist in Scirpture but you wouldn't present ANYTHING that it's dogmatically prohibited or even that it's not permitted or even good to do.

You are just parroting verbatim one of the 3 silly apologetics of the denominational tradition of the Anabaptist/Baptist invention that you reject but use anyway.

 

[MennoSota]

Okay.... so you say "infant being baptized" and not "infant baptism" Seems the same to me....






Show me where an American is baptized in Scripture. If you cannot than you admit it doesn't exist in Scripture but you wouldn't present ANYTHING that it's dogmatically prohibited or even not to be done.

Show me where a Gentile baptized anyone in Scripture. If you cannot then you admit it never happened in Scripture but you wouldn't present ANYTHING that it's dogmatically prohibited to be done or even that it's not great for this to happen.

Show me where anyone posts on the internet in Scripture. If you cannot then you admit it doesn't exist in Scirpture but you wouldn't present ANYTHING that it's dogmatically prohibited or even that it's not permitted or even good to do.

You are just parroting verbatim one of the 3 silly apologetics of the denominational tradition of the Anabaptist/Baptist invention that you reject but use anyway.

So let's see...
What denomination says...all Americans should be baptized at birth?
What denomination says...all Gentiles should be baptized at birth?
What denomination says...all Internet posters should be baptized?
Second, what scripture would they use to have these three groups baptized without any consent from the person being baptized?
Josiah, your silliness is noted.
Now, back to scripture. In the passages that provide historical incidences of baptism, how many show a baptism against the wishes of the person being baptized? How many verses teach that baptism is to be performed on any person at any time for no reason?
Josiah, I'm trying to get you to address scripture, but you are avoiding it like it's anathema to you.
Your argument is silly, Josiah. Since you cannot speak from scripture, I must throw out you comments on the grounds of being irrelevant and invalid.

 

[MennoSota]

30 verses on baptism and I can't find one that promotes infant baptism. I see both Jews and Gentiles coming to faith and I see them being baptized. I just can't see any verse that calls for infant baptism.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-baptism/

 

[Josiah]

how me where an infant is being baptized in scripture and you can convince me that baptism is to be done. If you cannot show an infant being baptized then admit it doesn't exist in scripture. It's really that simple.

Show me where an American is baptized in Scripture. If you cannot than you admit it doesn't exist in Scripture but you wouldn't present ANYTHING that it's dogmatically prohibited or even not to be done.

Show me where a Gentile baptized anyone in Scripture. If you cannot then you admit it never happened in Scripture but you wouldn't present ANYTHING that it's dogmatically prohibited to be done or even that it's not great for this to happen.

Show me where anyone posts on the internet in Scripture. If you cannot then you admit it doesn't exist in Scirpture but you wouldn't present ANYTHING that it's dogmatically prohibited or even that it's not permitted or even good to do.

You are just parroting verbatim one of the 3 silly apologetics of the denominational tradition of the Anabaptist/Baptist invention that you reject but use anyway.

It's really just that simple



.

So let's see...

So, you note the silliness of your apologetic?

In the passages that provide historical incidences of baptism...

In the passages that provide historical incidences of baptism, how many show a Gentile doing the baptizing? If it's none, does your denomination dogmatically forbid Gentiles from baptizing?
In the passages that provide historical incidences of baptism, how many show an American or a blonde haired person being baptized? If it's none, does your denomination dogmatically forbid them from being baptized?


Your entire apologetic is that what Scripture TEACHES is to be ignored and rather the rubric is what typically is shown as DONE in the few examples of such that just happens to be recorded in the NT. It's not only a profoundly SILLY rubric but one you reject (you prove it every time you post on the internet, don't you realize that?! ). And it's one you reject. There's not ONE example of a Gentile baptizing anyone in the NT and yet your denomination.... There's not one example of anyone being baptized in a tank located behind a curtain in the front of a church building and yet your denomination.... There's not one example of youth pastors and youth groups.... There's not one example of a woman receiving Communion.... There's not one example of Communion being celebrated 4 times a year by passing around to everyone a bowl of little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice..... You proclaim this SILLY rubric on the internet - PROVING you reject your whole premise that you are using. It's silly. It's wrong. YOU reject it. Why should we accept it?


Your argument is silly. Since you cannot speak from scripture, I must throw out you comments on the grounds of being irrelevant and invalid. You've not even TRIED to give even one verse that states even one thing that you do. You just parrot - on and on and on and on - the same broken record of the new tradition of your denomination, the same old 3 points that you yourself reject.