Credobaptists - What about those with disabilities and baptism?

[Albion]

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..

You misunderstand my explanation. It's not that you disagree with us (about which you say that we have no documentation), but that you disagree with what you've decided that we do believe but which we do not.

And no amount of setting the record straight by us makes any impact, as you will come back with a reply that attributes the same doctrines or practices to us. Put another way, you have spent a lot of time denying and denouncing the beliefs and practices of other people, not us.

 

[MennoSota]

You misunderstand my explanation. It's not that you disagree with us (about which you say that we have no documentation), but that you disagree with what you've decided that we do believe but which we do not.

And no amount of setting the record straight by us makes any impact, as you will come back with a reply that attributes the same doctrines or practices to us which we do not hold. Put another way, you have spend a lot of time denying the beliefs of some Christians, but we are not among them.

This is a cop-out on your part. I suspect you're either too lazy to make a biblical defense or you're just too ignorant of the scriptures to make an argument. Thus you lean on denominational dogmas.

 

[MennoSota]

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?

Again, where does the Bible say a person chooses Jesus?
Second, where do you find an unsaved person being baptized.
You have fully ignored my response to each of your Bible passages in which I present my case.
You have this remarkable ability to outright lie about what I have said. Congratulations.

 

[Josiah]

Second, where do you find an unsaved person being baptized.

You have already shown that your entire apologetic is wrong: NOT every case where a person is baptized it is indicated the person FIRST chose Jesus and made public testimony of such.... See First Corinthians 1:16 for just one example. Your premise is flatly wrong, it's just not true.

And you have NOT shown why it would matter even if it was true (which you've indicated it's not). You don't accept your rubric that we can only do what we see exampled in the NT and no other - so since you reject that rubric, why are we to be bound to it?

Yes, you keep saying that what matters is what the BIBLE STATES and not some denominational spin.... but you have yet to produce ONE SCRIPTURE that states we are forbidden to baptize people unless they FIRST have chosen Jesus and made public testimony of such; your entirely point is without ANY Scripture.... all you are doing is perfectly and verbatim echoing the new Anabaptist spin on this invented completely out of the blue by a man in the 16th Century.

You have fully ignored my response to each of your Bible passages in which I present my case.

No. Quite the opposite. I didn't need to go further than the first case, 1 Corinthians 1:16 and noted you could NOT show that any of the members of the household had FIRST decided for Jesus and made a public testimony of such. Your premise ("EVERY PERSON baptized in the Bible FIRST decided for Jesus and publicly testified to it") you showed is false, it's just not true. And you couldn't show where the verse states, "And because every person in the household FIRST chose Jesus and testified to such BEFORE they were allowed to be baptized, this is henceforth required for all are to be baptized."

And of course, you could not show where it states, "And all this is a waste of time, accomplishing nothing whatsoever."




.

 

[MennoSota]

You have already shown that your entire apologetic is wrong: NOT every case where a person is baptized it is indicated the person FIRST chose Jesus and made public testimony of such.... See First Corinthians 1:16 for just one example. Your premise is flatly wrong, it's just not true.

And you have NOT shown why it would matter even if it was true (which you've indicated it's not). You don't accept your rubric that we can only do what we see exampled in the NT and no other - so since you reject that rubric, why are we to be bound to it?

Yes, you keep saying that what matters is what the BIBLE STATES and not some denominational spin.... but you have yet to produce ONE SCRIPTURE that states we are forbidden to baptize people unless they FIRST have chosen Jesus and made public testimony of such; your entirely point is without ANY Scripture.... all you are doing is perfectly and verbatim echoing the new Anabaptist spin on this invented completely out of the blue by a man in the 16th Century.






No. Quite the opposite. I didn't need to go further than the first case, 1 Corinthians 1:16 and noted you could NOT show that any of the members of the household had FIRST decided for Jesus and made a public testimony of such. Your premise ("EVERY PERSON baptized in the Bible FIRST decided for Jesus and publicly testified to it") you showed is false, it's just not true. And you couldn't show where the verse states, "And because every person in the household FIRST chose Jesus and testified to such BEFORE they were allowed to be baptized, this is henceforth required for all are to be baptized."

And of course, you could not show where it states, "And all this is a waste of time, accomplishing nothing whatsoever."




.

Josiah. Quote each passage and share your interpretation of the scriptures as you observe them. I am looking forward to your honest and objective study of God's word. I invite it.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah. Quote each passage and share your interpretation of the scriptures as you observe them. I am looking forward to your honest and objective study of God's word. I invite it.

1 Corinthians 1:16, "I did baptize the household of Stephanas" Where does it state, "And every member of said family had first documented their faith in Christ as their Savior?" How does this verse support your apologetic of "EVERY baptism in the NT was of people who clearly were already Christians?" And all the other arugments you've made from tradition, from "EVERY example...." ?????

I'm looking for the verses: "But thou are forbidden to baptize any under the age of X." "But thou art forbidden to baptize any who have not FIRST documented their faith in Christ." "Baptism is a waste of time and accomplished nothing." You know, all the dogmatic claims you've been chanting over and over and over and over in thread after thread for quite some time now: bold dogmatic statements that you've NEVER presented ANY Scripture as saying, positions that are a pure, verbatim, echo of the Anabaptist denominations.

 

[MennoSota]

1 Corinthians 1:16, "I did baptize the household of Stephanas"

Where does it state, "And every member of said family had first documented their faith in Christ as their Savior?"

You didn't make any observation about the passage or interpret. You went to ask me a question where you imply that silence makes your argument. Silence is just silence. Will you try to read and make observations that are in the text?

How does this verse support your apologetic of "EVERY baptism in the NT was of people who clearly were already Christians?" And all the other arugments you've made from tradition, from "EVERY example...." ?????

You conveniently left out the section where Paul is thankful that he didn't baptize most of them. Why do you leave that out?

I'm looking for the verses: "But thou are forbidden to baptize any under the age of X." "But thou art forbidden to baptize any who have not FIRST documented their faith in Christ." "Baptism is a waste of time and accomplished nothing."

Those are all your own manufactured and made up arguments that I have never made. You know this, which makes your statements lies.

You know, all the dogmatic claims you've been chanting over and over and over and over in thread after thread for quite some time now: bold dogmatic statements that you've NEVER presented ANY Scripture as saying, positions that are a pure, verbatim, echo of the Anabaptist denominations.

I note that you never accomplished what I asked. I asked you to quote the verses and present what the verses say. You never did that. Why? Is it something you have never done before? Have you just accepted church dogma without observing the text of scripture? Please make an honest attempt to observe what the text says, not what it doesn't say. I will do the same.

 

[Albion]

This is a cop-out on your part. I suspect you're either too lazy to make a biblical defense or you're just too ignorant of the scriptures to make an argument. Thus you lean on denominational dogmas.

"Denominational" -- That's your own cop-out.

I can always anticipate you using it when you realize that you've lost the argument. I just read it as "I don't know what to say but I want the last word."







.

 

[MennoSota]

"Denominational" -- your own cop-out.

I can always anticipate you using it when you realize that you've lost the argument.

LOL, I can count on you telling me I have lost an argument when you have never made an argument in the first place.

 

[Albion]

LOL, I can count on you telling me I have lost an argument when you have never made an argument in the first place.

:yawning: I tried to help you understand what's going on with this discussion and this is all you can say? Very well, have it your way. Continue trolling, but at the expense of other people.








.

 

[MennoSota]

:yawning:

Albion, I offer the same to you as I do to Josiah. Quote the verses Josiah posted, observe what they say and share how baptism is presented in the text. I welcome your honest effort.

 

[Josiah]

Silence is just silence.

I agree. 1 Corinthians 1:16 is SILENT about the receivers of baptism FIRST attaining the magical age of X (so much for the anti-paedobaptism folks), SILENT about them FIRST choosing Jesus and making a public testimony of that (so much for the credobaptists), SILENT about them first weeping buckets of tears in repentance.


So your whole premise, "EVERY baptism in the NT was to those who FIRST gave testimony of their choice of Jesus" is in fact wrong. And it wouldn't matter if it was correct since the rubric you are insisting on (We can ONLY do what is exampled in the NT and cannot do otherwise") is a premise you reject so why should we be bound to it when you aren't, you reject it?



You haven't even attempted to give even one Scripture to support these newly invented prohibitions and limitations of the Anabaptists..... not even attempted.... because we both know, there is no verse that says one must FIRST decide for Jesus and give public testimony of such.... there is no verse that says one must FIRST attain the magical age of X.... there is no verse that says one must FIRST weep buckets of tears in repentance..... ALL of the new restrictions, prohibitions, limitations of the Anabaptists are entirely absent in Scripture - and I'm sure you know it because while you keep screaming "Bible ONLY" you haven't even attempted to do that. Rather, you are just perfectly echoing the denominational spin of Anabaptists, this entirely abiblical view invited out of the blue by a man in the 16th Century, you are just parroting the denomination spin.



.

 

[psalms 91]

I do believe that Johns baptism stated repent and be baptised and I cant think of an instance where in the New Testament anyone was baptised before being saved all that I remember they were saved and then baptized. Please correct me if my memory is faulty

 

[Lamb]

I do believe that Johns baptism stated repent and be baptised and I cant think of an instance where in the New Testament anyone was baptised before being saved all that I remember they were saved and then baptized. Please correct me if my memory is faulty

Are you reading it as "repent and" or "repent then" ?

 

[MennoSota]

I agree. 1 Corinthians 1:16 is SILENT about the receivers of baptism FIRST attaining the magical age of X (so much for the anti-paedobaptism folks), SILENT about them FIRST choosing Jesus and making a public testimony of that (so much for the credobaptists), SILENT about them first weeping buckets of tears in repentance.


So your whole premise, "EVERY baptism in the NT was to those who FIRST gave testimony of their choice of Jesus" is in fact wrong. And it wouldn't matter if it was correct since the rubric you are insisting on (We can ONLY do what is exampled in the NT and cannot do otherwise") is a premise you reject so why should we be bound to it when you aren't, you reject it?



You haven't even attempted to give even one Scripture to support these newly invented prohibitions and limitations of the Anabaptists..... not even attempted.... because we both know, there is no verse that says one must FIRST decide for Jesus and give public testimony of such.... there is no verse that says one must FIRST attain the magical age of X.... there is no verse that says one must FIRST weep buckets of tears in repentance..... ALL of the new restrictions, prohibitions, limitations of the Anabaptists are entirely absent in Scripture - and I'm sure you know it because while you keep screaming "Bible ONLY" you haven't even attempted to do that. Rather, you are just perfectly echoing the denominational spin of Anabaptists, this entirely abiblical view invited out of the blue by a man in the 16th Century, you are just parroting the denomination spin.



.

Josiah, once again you refuse to observe scripture. Instead, you just mimic your unfounded talking points. It is best that you drop out of the conversation if you cannot or will not observe scripture to share what it does say.
What Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians is that he did not baptize all of them. He tells us or at least implies that he is glad he didn't baptize them. Question: Why would Paul be glad to not baptize someone? What does he recognize in the Corinthian church that causes God to inspire him to write this to them?
Let's address Sola Scriptura here, Josiah.

 

[psalms 91]

Are you reading it as "repent and" or "repent then" ?

I believe it reads repent and be bartized

 

[Albion]

I believe it reads repent and be bartized

That would be something like being laminated, I suppose. Or Simonized.

 

[psalms 91]

That would be something like being laminated, I suppose. Or Simonized.

lol baptized

 

[meluckycharms]

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

The first century church was non-denominational.

 

[meluckycharms]

I tend to lean towards the Pentecostal position on baptism.