Credobaptists - What about those with disabilities and baptism?

[MennoSota]

So, you note the silliness of your apologetic?








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.

You have created a massive red herring, Josiah. Add to it that you have zero scripture and my case is made. You are tasked with proving infant baptism from scripture. So far you have utterly failed in the task.

 

[Josiah]

Show 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


.

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.



MennoSota, You have created a massive red herring. Add to it that you have zero scripture and my case is made. You are tasked with substantiating your new dogma on baptism from scripture (or ANYWHERE). So far you have utterly failed in the task, you've not even tried to do it... you just keep parroting endlessly (for months now, in several threads) the new tradition of your denomination and the same silly 3 points that you yourself reject - and evade anything presented to you.




.

 

[psalms 91]

Maybe the two of you need to agree to disagree and stop alreaduy. Name calling, your wrong Im right page after page. Dont you two think it is time to quit?

 

[Josiah]

Maybe the two of you need to agree to disagree and stop alreaduy. Name calling, your wrong Im right page after page. Dont you two think it is time to quit?

You have a point.....

It is OBVIOUS to all that MennoSota fails to met the criteria HE HIMSELF imposes. Well, it's obvious to all but one.

He (not me) DEMANDS everyone just disregard any and all "denominational tradition" but the ONLY THING HE OFFERS is endless, perpetual parroting of his denominational tradition. Wonder why he doesn't 'get it?'

He (not me) DEMANDS everyone just go by the words of teaching in the Bible, but he DOESN'T EVEN ATTEMPT to give even one Scripture teaching even one of his points. Wonder why he doesn't get it?

I think it's OBVIOUS he is presenting a hypocritical, contradictory "double standard" that everyone realizes but he himself (or he DOES realize it and doesn't care - exempting himself from his own condemnations)



Some have TRIED (completely in vain) to discuss this topic here, but a couple have refused to do this - pushing nearly all out of the discussion. Rather than DISCUSSING the issues, MennoSota has ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY been repeating the same old broken record..... over and over and over and over..... in thread after thread..... making it impossible to discuss this topic.... just parroting the same Anabaptist Tradition (while insisting everyone ignore it, go figure) and REFUSING to even suggest even one Scripture that actually states what he does (while insisting we ignore any teachings that don't have Scripture stating the same thing). He has been repeatly and clearly shown - by SEVERAL - the absurdity of his 3 apologetics, but since he refuses to consider anything (just resulting to name-calling) it does no good. He just keeps on like a broken record, repeating the same points he doesn't even accept himself, shooting himself in the foot.

I'm been persistent because I want him to see that what he's doing IS THE PROBLEM, not the solution. That is he doing EXACTLY what he is condemning and rejecting. But since he WILL NOT see the hypocrisy here and WILL NOT consider anything anyone posts, then you are right: obviously, it is in vain. All he is going to do is the very thing he condemns being done. Making discussions impossible. Too bad. I tried.



- Josiah

 

[Albion]

I'm been persistent because I want him to see that what he's doing IS THE PROBLEM, not the solution. That is he doing EXACTLY what he is condemning and rejecting. But since he WILL NOT see the hypocrisy here and WILL NOT consider anything anyone posts, then you are right: obviously, it is in vain. All he is going to do is the very thing he condemns being done. Making discussions impossible. Too bad. I tried.

Good decision. An even better one is for all of us to reach for the Ignore button.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

What we "want people to see" won't be seen sometimes (from either side) after 45 pages :dunno:

 

[MennoSota]

Maybe the two of you need to agree to disagree and stop alreaduy. Name calling, your wrong Im right page after page. Dont you two think it is time to quit?

A red herring is a logical fallacy. This is a fact with the argument used by Josiah. It is clear, however, that he refuses to argue from scripture.

 

[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/

Which of the 30 verses from scripture on baptism is Anabaptist dogma? I have yet to know how scripture equals Anabaptist dogma. Hmmm...
What we know from scripture is that it is silent regarding age for baptism. In other words, there is no legalistic rule. What we also know from scripture is that in every reference to baptism the person(s) being baptized were declaring that God had changed their life and given them faith. Not once do we see a person baptized before they express their faith. We just don't find it anywhere.
Therefore, an argument to baptize a person before faith is expressed is an argument from silence rather than an argument from biblical evidence.

 

[atpollard]

Your entire apologetic is that what Scripture TEACHES is to be ignored ...

What does Scripture teach?
Be specific and cite verses.
Are we sure it is being ignored by Particular Baptists?

 

[Josiah]

A red herring is a logical fallacy. This is a fact with the argument used by Josiah. It is clear, however, that he refuses to argue from scripture.

1. I haven't stated a position, I have nothing to prove (with Scripture or anything). I'm addressing YOUR position.

2. All you have done is parroted (verbatim) the denominational tradition of the Anabaptist/Baptist position here... yet DEMANDED that all positions be TAUGHT by the words of Scripture. But in 45 pages, you have yet to present even one Scripture that teaches what you do on this topic (you've not even TRIED to do that!).

3. You insist that we all just ignore Tradition but all you've done since you've joined this site is verbatim parrot the 3 points of the Anabaptist/Baptist Tradition on this point.... never discussing them, never giving one Scripture for any of them, just parroting them. Then you flame others when they do what you tell them to do: Ignore all denominational tradition.

4. While insisting we must ignore all the denomination tradition you keep parroting.... and go only by the teaching of Scripture that you've yet to offer.... you then insist that what Scripture teaches is irrelevant and we must instead use as normative what we see as DONE in the few examples of things that happen to be recorded in the NT. But you don't do this, you consistently reject your own apologetic and point, but keep insisting on it while you yourself reject it. I don't know if you just haven't thought this through (because you don't read what is posted to you) or just like shooting yourself in the foot. But it's a silly apologetic.

5. You keep insisting we must not "assume" things but then you admit to assuming things at every point in your new dogma... you keep insisting we must reject positions based on silence but then you admit your new dogma is based on silence. Have you just not thought your position through or do you like shooting yourself in the foot or are you just setting up a hypocritical double standard to make any discussion impossible?

What does Scripture teach?

Let's see if it teaches the new baptism dogmatic invention of the Anabaptist/Baptist denomination in 1523.... Perhaps you can give the references to the following (since you seem to support MennoSota's approach here)....


Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath FIRST celebrated their Xth birthday! (To support the Anti-Paedobaptism dogma of Anabaptist/Baptist)

Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath FIRST chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and hath first given adequate public proof of such! (to support the Credobaptism dogma of Anabaptist/Baptist)

Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath FIRST wept X buckets of tears in repentance and hath first given adequate public proof of such! (to support the dogma 2 in this thread have dogmatically mandated)

Thou canst NOT do ANYTHING unless such action is clearly and consistently illustrated as having been done in examples given in the New Testament! (to support the position of 2 in this thread and the Anabaptist apologetic on this topic)

Baptism doth nothing! (to support the dogma 2 in this thread have dogmatically mandated)



- Josiah



.

 

[atpollard]

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.

So when push comes to shove and you are asked to provide an example of what Scripture teaches (to see if Particular Baptists really are ignoring it) ... you have nothing to present. Your accusation appears to be 100% unsupported rhetoric. How disappointing.

 

[Josiah]

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

So when push comes to shove and you are asked to provide an example of what Scripture teaches (to see if Particular Baptists really are ignoring it) ... you have nothing to present. Your accusation appears to be 100% unsupported rhetoric. How disappointing.

Of course not (perhaps you didn't read what you quoted).


I'm REJECTING (not defending) the Anabaptist/Baptist apologetic that we must ignore what Scripture teaches and in stead of that, in lieu of that, in place of that, consider normative what is clearly and consistently DONE in the few examples of such that happen to be recorded in the NT. You know, the point you make about what was DONE and in an argument from silence, what appears NOT DONE. You know, your consistent point of "Where do you find an example of a blonde haired person being baptized in the Bible?!?!?!" You know, the consistent, perpetual apologetic used over and over that, "Every example of baptism that happens to be recorded in the NT is of receivers who FIRST had 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 supplied adequate public proof of that, FIRST proclaimed that baptism does nothing and FIRST personally requested to be baptized.... THUS we must do that and can do no other." Of course, it's wrong (the examples in the NT do not so indicate) and it's a silly rubric that no Anabaptist/Baptist accepts but uses as their key apologetic for their distinctive dogma anyway. I agree that Baptists ignore this reality....


I also REJECT (and do not defend) the other point about the koine Greek word "kai" dogmatically mandating chronological sequence and thus a long (ever growing) chain of dogmatic prerequisites. Again, the whole apologetic is just wrong as it seems Anabaptist/Baptist agree but use anyway as the other apologetic for their new, distinctive dogma.


My point to MennoSota, obviously, is 1) He needs to think through his own position (but of course, he won't) and 2) he has created a normative formula that he completely and consistently violates himself (but he just ignores that) and makes the discussion impossible: he is simply SO obsessed with parroting his unique, new denominational "spin" that he surrounds it with a rubric that he himself consistently violates - a hypocritical double standard. IMO, he shoots himself in the foot with ALL his attempts to defend the new denomination tradition of Anabaptist/Baptists by disagreeing with himself on every point, and he shoots himself in the foot with his normative insistence by completely and consistently violating it every single time. YOU may see this (although you've never noted so) .... but he won't.

What does Scripture teach?

GREAT! Let's abandon the silly apologetics of the Anabaptist/Baptists and the absurd normative practice they insist upon but consistently and constantly don't. Let's see if it teaches the new baptism dogmatic invention of the Anabaptist/Baptist denomination in 1523.... Perhaps you can give the references to the following (since you seem to support MennoSota's approach here; that Scripture must clearly teach as a denomination's tradition does)....


Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath FIRST celebrated their Xth birthday! (To support the Anti-Paedobaptism dogma of Anabaptist/Baptist)

Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath FIRST chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and hath first given adequate public proof of such! (to support the Credobaptism dogma of Anabaptist/Baptist)

Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath FIRST wept X buckets of tears in repentance and hath first given adequate public proof of such! (to support the point 2 in this thread have dogmatically mandated)

Thou canst NOT do ANYTHING unless such action is clearly and consistently illustrated as having been done in examples given in the New Testament! (to support the position of 2 in this thread and the Anabaptist apologetic on this topic)

Baptism doth nothing! (to support the point 2 in this thread have dogmatically mandated)

Does Scripture TEACH the new, unique denominational dogma and tradition of the Anabaptist/Baptist on baptism (anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism)? Reminder, MennoSota's MANDATE is that we can't assume anything, can't use any tradition, and can't say anything that the Bible doesn't clearly and consistently say (and you've been defending him for months now and have never once disagreed with him or corrected him on this).



- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

Of course not (perhaps you didn't read what you quoted).


I'm REJECTING (not defending) the Anabaptist/Baptist apologetic that we must ignore what Scripture teaches and in stead of that, in lieu of that, in place of that, consider normative what is clearly and consistently DONE in the few examples of such that happen to be recorded in the NT. You know, the point you make about what was DONE and in an argument from silence, what appears NOT DONE. You know, your consistent point of "Where do you find an example of a blonde haired person being baptized in the Bible?!?!?!" You know, the consistent, perpetual apologetic used over and over that, "Every example of baptism that happens to be recorded in the NT is of receivers who FIRST had 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 supplied adequate public proof of that, FIRST proclaimed that baptism does nothing and FIRST personally requested to be baptized.... THUS we must do that and can do no other." Of course, it's wrong (the examples in the NT do not so indicate) and it's a silly rubric that no Anabaptist/Baptist accepts but uses as their key apologetic for their distinctive dogma anyway. I agree that Baptists ignore this reality....


I also REJECT (and do not defend) the other point about the koine Greek word "kai" dogmatically mandating chronological sequence and thus a long (ever growing) chain of dogmatic prerequisites. Again, the whole apologetic is just wrong as it seems Anabaptist/Baptist agree but use anyway as the other apologetic for their new, distinctive dogma.


My point to MennoSota, obviously, is 1) He needs to think through his own position (but of course, he won't) and 2) he has created a normative formula that he completely and consistently violates himself (but he just ignores that) and makes the discussion impossible: he is simply SO obsessed with parroting his unique, new denominational "spin" that he surrounds it with a rubric that he himself consistently violates - a hypocritical double standard. IMO, he shoots himself in the foot with ALL his attempts to defend the new denomination tradition of Anabaptist/Baptists by disagreeing with himself on every point, and he shoots himself in the foot with his normative insistence by completely and consistently violating it every single time. YOU may see this (although you've never noted so) .... but he won't.








GREAT! Let's abandon the silly apologetics of the Anabaptist/Baptists and the absurd normative practice they insist upon but consistently and constantly don't. Let's see if it teaches the new baptism dogmatic invention of the Anabaptist/Baptist denomination in 1523.... Perhaps you can give the references to the following (since you seem to support MennoSota's approach here; that Scripture must clearly teach as a denomination's tradition does)....


Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath FIRST celebrated their Xth birthday! (To support the Anti-Paedobaptism dogma of Anabaptist/Baptist)

Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath FIRST chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and hath first given adequate public proof of such! (to support the Credobaptism dogma of Anabaptist/Baptist)

Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath FIRST wept X buckets of tears in repentance and hath first given adequate public proof of such! (to support the dogma 2 in this thread have dogmatically mandated)

Thou canst NOT do ANYTHING unless such action is clearly and consistently illustrated as having been done in examples given in the New Testament! (to support the position of 2 in this thread and the Anabaptist apologetic on this topic)

Baptism doth nothing! (to support the dogma 2 in this thread have dogmatically mandated)

Does Scripture TEACH the new, unique denominational dogma and tradition of the Anabaptist/Baptist on baptism (anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism)? Reminder, MennoSota's MANDATE is that we can't assume anything, can't use any tradition, and can't say anything that the Bible doesn't clearly and consistently say (and you've been defending him for months now and have never once disagreed with him or corrected him on this).



- Josiah




.

Again, you have provided no scripture. This thread has proven that you have no biblical support. You are merely creating a philosophical argument from thin air as your crutch for your position. The length of this thread proves this over and over again. You refuse to address scripture and always rest on your philosophy. The argument is over. You have no support. Mods, please lock and close this thread.

 

[Josiah]

MennoSota, Again, you have provided no scripture. This thread has proven that you have no biblical support. You are merely parroting (verbatim) the new dogmatic invention of a couple of radical synergists in 1523, invented from thin air as a crutch for their radical synergism. The length of this thread proves this over and over again. You mandate that all denominational tradition must be disregarded but all you is parrot your denomination's tradition. You mandate that scripture must teach the position or it is to be disregarded, but you refuse to offer even one Scripture that teaches even one point of your denomination's new tradition you parrot. The argument is over. You have no support. Just repeating three absurd, silly apologetical points that you reject but think everyone must accept.

 

[psalms 91]

What this thread has proven is that neither of you will let it go, you are like dogs with a bone. It has went way beyond the point of who is right or wrong and entered into the rediculous and you are both equally guilty of it. There can be np argument if one is willing to let it go and neither of you are so perhaps we should all just go away and let you two wander aimlessly through this thread forever.

 

[Josiah]

What this thread has proven is that neither of you will let it go, you are like dogs with a bone. It has went way beyond the point of who is right or wrong and entered into the rediculous and you are both equally guilty of it. There can be np argument if one is willing to let it go and neither of you are so perhaps we should all just go away and let you two wander aimlessly through this thread forever.

[MENTION=43]psalms 91[/MENTION]
[MENTION=389]Albion[/MENTION]
[MENTION=55]ImaginaryDay2[/MENTION]


I ask you to read and consider this....


I think you are missing the entire point....


I'm not making an argument. I'm not setting the rules. I'm EVALUATING and RESPONDING to MennoSota's arguments and normative mandates. And he's very, very skillfully ignoring every bit of it. I'm 100% sure why. I'm calling for intellectual honesty and an "equal playing field" and an end to the radical double standard he is demanding (it seems with support from others).


What he is insisting upon is what "kills" any possibility of discussion. All these pages prove it.

+ He claims we must ignore tradition (but all he does is parrot his denomination's tradition!).
+ He claims Scripture must teach exactly what a denomination does (but he refuses to give one Scripture that teaches even one aspect of the dogma he promotes).
+ He claims we must reject assumptions and speculations (but bases his whole view on assumptions and speculations)
+ He claims we are permitted to do only what is clearly and consistently done in the Bible (but he rejects that view, proving every time he posts on the internet)
and that's just for starters....

There's a heavy dose of hypocrisy here, an absurd double-standard where he forbids the very thing he does worse of all. Why does this matter? Because it kills the discussion and makes any agreement impossible.


The issue of Baptism is not an easy one. The questions these radical synergists began to ask in the 16th Century are not directly addressed in Scripture. BUT.,.

1. We do have solid, ecumenical, universal tradition (consensus in theology and practice) since at least 63AD. And nothing in it runs contrary to Scripture (in teaching or practice) - and he knows that (I think atpollard even admitted it early on). SO MennoSota must reject any mention of Tradition, but that's all he's got - he's simply tossed out 2000 years of solid, ecumenical tradition for that of 3 German wackedoodle radical synergists invented out of thin air in 1523 NOT because of anything the Scripture says about baptism but because their new invention "jibes" better with their radical synergism. He can't have it both ways, he can't insist we not look to Tradition when that's ALL HE DOES, just parrots endlessly (and mindlessly) the talking points of the Anabaptist tradition.

2. We do have Scripture that speaks of Baptism as being used by God, we do have the command to baptize, we do see it given enormous importance.... true, no verse that says "This command INCLUDES those under the age of X" but of course there's none that says "This command EXCLUDES those under the age of X" either. Of course, we DO have Tradition which notes that infant baptism was universal by 63 AD (when most of the Apostles were still alive) but Anabaptists disregard all ecumenical and historic tradition but declare their own newly and uniquely invented tradition to be infallible. And of course, we have no command that blonde-haired persons may be baptized either - the Anabaptist point that we can only baptize those groups of humans were examples of such are illustrated in the NT is profoundly silly.

Frankly, MennoSota - rather than the intellectual honesty to admit this, rather than engaging in any discussion - has just resorted to echoing ENDLESSLY the same silly talking points and destroying any possibility of discussion with his endless prohibitions of the very things he consistently does. And more than a little "name-calling." I'm calling him out on it. NOT because of anything personal (I think I'm the one who invited him to join here!) but rather because he is so powerfully illustrating the problem - why Christianity is divided on this, why discussions go nowhere on this.



- Josiah



.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]
[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]

Again-

What we "want people to see" won't be seen sometimes (from either side) after 45 pages :dunno:

46 now...

 

[NewCreation435]

Staff Notice

We are closing this thread for staff review. It may be reopened later once it has been reviewed and possibly edited.

 

[NewCreation435]

Staff Notice

This thread is now permanently closed

 

[Lamb]

I wanted to add to the staff notice that we normally do not like closing threads but this one was too far gone in the back and forth "you're wrong" "no, you're wrong" that it was no longer a productive thread. Besides, my original topic was not being addressed anymore so it is best that this thread just gets a staff death since members wouldn't allow it to die peacefully