Credobaptists - What about those with disabilities and baptism?

[Josiah]

Actually, they do. That's because they show us one more inconsistency in the Anabaptist argument. While all the traditional churches--and historic Christianity--baptize without prejudice, the "Believers Baptism" denominations' argument is rent with holes.

EXACTLY!!!


For 1500 years, EVERY Christian had the same view... THEN, suddenly, out-of-the-blue, one guy in the 16th Century invented a bunch of limitations, prohibitions and mandates that are all ENTIRELY, COMPLETELY missing in Scripture.


In this thread, we've had one with this new Anabaptist list of limitations and mandates echoing all of them verbatim and with NOTHING in Scripture to support them.... just echoing the denominational line.... That's it. That's ALL.


Now, they MAY (wrongly) say that the universal, ecumenical view that had existed for 1500 years before that one dude came up with this long list of limitations, prohibitions and requirements is also without CLEAR Scriptural statements... but even if that were true, it simply means that the Anabaptist just did the very thing they condemned (two wrongs don't make a right), Jesus' "Log/Speck" point would apply to the new, tiny minority of Anabaptists most of all.

In their case, no one can say for sure at what age a person is old enough to be baptized.

.... they'll never tell us what this magical age of "X" is (for a good reason, Scripture knows NOTHING of ANY min. age requirement)

... they'll never tell us what this min. IQ is, this min. educational level, exactly how one has to document/prove their faith in Jesus... these new unbiblical requirements (for good reason, Scripture knows NOTHING of these mandates and limitations).

And no one can explain how we know who is smart enough and who is not smart enough, or who else is NOT to be considered part of "all nations."

EXACTLY!!!!


Those under the never-disclosed, mysterious age of X aren't "all nations"...... but are Japanese? Are Swedes? Are English? After all, we don't have ANY examples of any of those being baptized in the Bible that THAT'S the rule: We can't do anything unless that's what was done in every example that happens to be recorded in the NT. It's why they are obsessed with who was and was not baptized in the few examples we have in the NT. "NO BABIES!" They shout (without any biblical support). Well.... no Germans either. No native Americans either. No Irish either. No blondes. No Blacks. Do they look at every applicant for Baptism and see if they "match" all the examples of baptism in the Bible? Nope. And of course, every baptism in the Bible appears to have been conducted by a HEBREW male (not one case we can document where a Gentile baptized anyone in the NT), so do they forbid and prohibit Gentiles from baptizing? No. SO MANY CONTRADICTIONS, so much really bad logic.

In addition, that religious POV makes a big issue over the mode of baptism, calling this application of water invalid but that other one necessary...only to then claim that the sacrament doesn't mean anything much and doesn't do anything, either!

EXACTLY!


All the obsession for the HOW while entirely ignoring the WHY... An absolute obsession over the HOW - it's ALL important - in this rite they claim has no benefit, accomplishes absolutely nothing, cannot be used by God for anything.... Talk about an obsession over meaningless, powerless, useless rites.


All this obsession over the HOW in Baptism from the very same people who celebrate Communion 4 times a year by passing around a bowl of little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and tiny plastic cups of Welches' Grape Juice to any in the pews who are hungry..... the very same people who insist that the HOW never matters in anything else and who take enormous liberties with the other sacrament/ordinance, who never give a rip about doing anything else exactly how it was in the examples recorded in the Bible.... (I doubt the Apostles had white bread or grape juice or plastic cups, lol... or passed it around in pews while the praise band plays Kumbyah). Why the absolute obsession over the HOW in something they INSIST is useless to God, accomplishes nothing, does nothing?




- Josiah




.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Certainly, I held off. My not being baptized immediately upon salvation was not a mortal sin and did not affect my being adopted by God.

I hadn't suggested that. But the witness of scripture does not support "holding off". Let's continue:
"Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day".
I intentionally left out the "...and your children..." part, because it might send things into a tizzy, and it didn't really apply since you determined within yourself that you had passed the age of "X" enough to make a rational decision.

Baptism isn't (a) sacrament that gives me more grace.

No-one has said it "gives you more grace". Baptism is a grace. There's a difference.

Water Baptism expresses outwardly to other humans what God has already done in redeeming us.

We disagree and that's okay.

 

[atpollard]

For 1500 years, EVERY Christian had the same view... THEN, suddenly, out-of-the-blue, one guy in the 16th Century invented a bunch of limitations, prohibitions and mandates that are all ENTIRELY, COMPLETELY missing in Scripture.

[Mat 3:6 NASB] 6 and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins.
[Mar 1:5 NASB] 5 And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.
[Mar 16:16 NASB] 16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
[Act 2:38, 41 NASB] 38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ... 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.
[Act 8:12-13 NASB] 12 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike. 13 Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed.
[Act 18:8 NASB] 8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.
[Act 19:4-5 NASB] 4 Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
[Act 22:16 NASB] 16 'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.'


Limitations: believe, confess, hear, repent (in alphabetical order)

One guy "just invented" limitations ... :nono:

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Limitations: believe, confess, hear, repent (in alphabetical order)

One guy "just invented" limitations ... :nono:

Evidence for new believers being baptized is not evidence against children/babies/disabled/ or those intellectually unable to understand being denied.
Limitations indeed...

 

[atpollard]

[The ‘church’ to you is made of believers and their households.

No. Nor did I say that.

Actually, you did.
I asked why you baptize infants and you replied:

Because it is God's sacrament, not our handiwork. Because it makes one a member of the church. Because it confers grace and forgives sin. Because it is commanded in several places in Scripture. Because the New Testament testifies to the appropriateness of baptizing young children. Because there is no particular age given in Scripture when anyone is to be baptized.

So you did claim that the church is made of believers and their baptized children (household).

 

[MennoSota]

I hadn't suggested that. But the witness of scripture does not support "holding off". Let's continue:
"Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day".

There is no requirement for immediate baptism. There is historical precedent and I am not averse to a person being immediately baptized after God obviously provides the gift of grace and faith.

I intentionally left out the "...and your children..." part, because it might send things into a tizzy, and it didn't really apply since you determined within yourself that you had passed the age of "X" enough to make a rational decision.

What verse are you referring to? I know of the passages where "you and your household" is presented, but I am unaware of "you and your children."

No-one has said it "gives you more grace". Baptism is a grace. There's a difference.

Nowhere does the Bible state that baptism is a grace. That is your church dogma, created by its leadership apart from scripture.
Grace is: God giving to you what you do not deserve.
God does not give you an undeserved baptism. What is undeserved is your adoption into the family of God by Christ's atoning sacrifice.

We disagree and that's okay.

It is only okay as long as you don't teach a false gospel of baptismal regeneration.

 

[MennoSota]

Actually, they do. That's because they show us one more inconsistency in the Anabaptist argument. While all the traditional churches--and historic Christianity--baptize without prejudice, the "Believers Baptism" denominations' argument is rent with holes. In their case, no one can say for sure at what age a person is old enough to be baptized. In the South, for example, it's apparently much younger than in other parts of the country.

And no one can explain how we know who is smart enough and who is not smart enough, or who else is NOT to be considered part of "all nations." In addition, that religious POV makes a big issue over the mode of baptism, calling this application of water invalid but that other one necessary...only to then claim that the sacrament doesn't mean anything much and doesn't do anything, either!

You can baptize at any age...as long as you don't present it as regenerative and forming a union with Christ.
Sprinkle every person in the world, but know that it has no magical power of regeneration. Your sprinkling is of no value unto salvation.

 

[atpollard]

Evidence for new believers being baptized is not evidence against children/babies/disabled/ or those intellectually unable to understand being denied.
Limitations indeed...

Are "believe, confess, hear, repent" in fact "ENTIRELY, COMPLETELY missing in Scripture" with respect to the subject of baptism as Josiah has claimed?
I do not demand that anyone agrees with me, I only ask for honest dialogue. His charges against 'believers baptism' do not seem scripturally honest.
We have enough honest differences in interpretation without inventing false accusations.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

It is only okay as long as you don't teach a false gospel of baptismal regeneration.

^^^This. It's okay because the way this site works is there are differences of opinion. There are a number of places on the internet that will parrot what each of us believes, but the reason many of us come here is to have a real exchange of information and discussion with real people, some of whom don't see things the way we do. And that's okay. No qualifiers. I think folks have been more than patient with you in this regard. The accusations of anything you don't agree with as a "false gospel" whether you believe the bible is on your side, or in your own imaginings, is uncalled for. In the bigger scheme of things, God will sort out who is his, and who isn't, what's "valid" and what's not. If, in our imaginings, we think of ourselves so highly as to know for sure, we are only being prideful sinners.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Are "believe, confess, hear, repent" in fact "ENTIRELY, COMPLETELY missing in Scripture" with respect to the subject of baptism as Josiah has claimed?
I do not demand that anyone agrees with me, I only ask for honest dialogue. His charges against 'believers baptism' do not seem scripturally honest.
We have enough honest differences in interpretation without inventing false accusations.

Fair enough.

 

[atpollard]

Evidence for new believers being baptized is not evidence against children/babies/disabled/ or those intellectually unable to understand being denied.
Limitations indeed...

[humor] Personally, I don't care if you want to baptize pre-natal or even post-mortem. I have opinions, but I am not your guide, the Holy Spirit is ... so follow what He tells you, not what I tell you. I just don't quite see how 'unlimited' baptism works.
Does your church baptize people in a coma? I was just wondering how you decide that a stranger in a coma wants to become a believer. Do you baptize everyone you meet 'just in case'? [end humor]

On a serious note, just how complicated is the Gospel?

God is perfect.
We make mistakes.
Jesus is the only one that can forgive our mistakes.
What do you want to do about Jesus?

How old does a child need to be to comprehend the Gospel?
How high of an IQ is needed to comprehend the Gospel?
How small of a group are we really talking about that are so disabled to be intellectually incapable of understanding the Gospel?
Who says that God cannot save them without baptism (what about every miscarriage or aborted baby that had no chance at baptism)?

 

[Albion]

[humor] Personally, I don't care if you want to baptize pre-natal or even post-mortem. I have opinions, but I am not your guide, the Holy Spirit is ... so follow what He tells you, not what I tell you. I just don't quite see how 'unlimited' baptism works.

Maybe we could have someone here who advocates "unlimited baptism" explain to us what that means. I've never heard of it before, so I am certainly not the one to try to explain how it works.

 

[atpollard]

deteted wasted humor

 

[Albion]

I seem to remember someone in a topic suggesting running around with a water pistol to 'baptize' everyone you meet ... it might work like that. You know, better safe than sorry.

Find me a church which advocates or does that, and you'll have something to talk about.

Meanwhile, is the water pistol thing what you had in mind when referring to your "Unlimited Baptism" idea??

 

[Albion]

Actually, you did.
I asked why you baptize infants and you replied:


So you did claim that the church is made of believers and their baptized children (household).

Man, you cannot seem to stand behind what you write. You clearly have changed your statement here from what it had been before (and which I had replied to in post 95).

BTW, you wrote "I don’t ask you to accept my beliefs, just represent them fairly." If that is important to you, you need to treat me with the same fairness.

 

[atpollard]

deleted

 

[atpollard]

Man, you cannot seem to stand behind what you write. You clearly have changed your statement here from what it had been before (and which I had replied to in post 95).

BTW, you wrote "I don’t ask you to accept my beliefs, just represent them fairly." If that is important to you, you need to treat me with the same fairness.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
God Bless.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]

Are "believe, confess, hear, repent" in fact "ENTIRELY, COMPLETELY missing in Scripture" with respect to the subject of baptism as Josiah has claimed?

I never said any such thing, I said they are not given as prerequisite for baptism. Nowhere are we forbidden to administer baptism without any of those FIRST being in place. But yes, absolutely, baptism is most certainly associated with those.

His charges against 'believers baptism' do not seem scripturally honest.

I know of no charges (I'm not opposed to a person FIRST being given faith), I'm disagreeing the the Bible states we are forbidden to give it UNLESS and UNTIL the receiver FIRST attains the age of X, FIRST weeps buckets of tears in repentance, FIRST chants the Sinner's Prayer and/or does the Altar Call thing, FIRST has publicly documented their faith in Christ - or any of the other new prohibitions, restrictions and limitations various Anabaptists have insisted Scripture states.

We have enough honest differences in interpretation without inventing false accusations.

I don't think I've made "false accusations" And I don't think it's a matter of interpretations. Either Scripture states, "Thou art forbidden to baptize any before the age of X" or it doesn't.

I DO think we have two conflicting rubrics. I hold to the Protestant one of Sola Scriptura, that it's the teaching of the words in the Bible that are the norma normans. Some here have insisted that rather, what is normative is what is illustrated by the handful of examples that happen to be recorded in the NT (thus their constant focus on "Every example in the Bible is ...." "Can you show one example of _____ in the NT?" It bothers them not a bit that their whole premise is absent in the teaching of the Bible, their entire focus is on examples or illustrations found there - insisting we cannot do anything not specifically illustrated in the Bible and must do what is illustrated. Two conflicting rubrics. Now, I accept that tradition can be norma normata (can help us understand the norm/rule) and that's why I've mentioned the Didache, etc. but I do NOT agree that what we happen to see illustrated in the Bible IS the norma normans (which of course would make it wrong for us to be posting on the internet since that's not exampled in the NT).



- Josiah



.

 

[MennoSota]

^^^This. It's okay because the way this site works is there are differences of opinion. There are a number of places on the internet that will parrot what each of us believes, but the reason many of us come here is to have a real exchange of information and discussion with real people, some of whom don't see things the way we do. And that's okay. No qualifiers. I think folks have been more than patient with you in this regard. The accusations of anything you don't agree with as a "false gospel" whether you believe the bible is on your side, or in your own imaginings, is uncalled for. In the bigger scheme of things, God will sort out who is his, and who isn't, what's "valid" and what's not. If, in our imaginings, we think of ourselves so highly as to know for sure, we are only being prideful sinners.

I ask this:
Prove your position with Scripture alone, apart from church dogma. If you cannot provide biblical data for your position, I will call it out as dogma at best and heresy at worst.
Opinions without biblical support are mere words without meaning. You might as well speak gibberish and claim it is a valid language.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

[humor] Personally, I don't care if you want to baptize pre-natal or even post-mortem. I have opinions, but I am not your guide, the Holy Spirit is ... so follow what He tells you, not what I tell you. I just don't quite see how 'unlimited' baptism works.
Does your church baptize people in a coma? I was just wondering how you decide that a stranger in a coma wants to become a believer. Do you baptize everyone you meet 'just in case'? [end humor]

On a serious note, just how complicated is the Gospel?

God is perfect.
We make mistakes.
Jesus is the only one that can forgive our mistakes.
What do you want to do about Jesus?

How old does a child need to be to comprehend the Gospel?
How high of an IQ is needed to comprehend the Gospel?
How small of a group are we really talking about that are so disabled to be intellectually incapable of understanding the Gospel?
Who says that God cannot save them without baptism (what about every miscarriage or aborted baby that had no chance at baptism)?

I'm going to answer this with an example. It relates not to baptism, but to communion - another "symbolic" act (to some - I see it differently), but I think it applies. There was a lady named Terry Schiavo who was the center of much news attention about doctor assisted death. She was in a vegetative state in the hospital, and there were efforts on a number of sides to keep her alive, and to remove her feeding tube to allow her to pass away. By some family accounts, she was coherent and could make facial expressions.
However, she was finally allowed last rites and communion, administered by a Priest.
Now, before this becomes a Catholic argument, I recall there were a few Evangelical leaders such as Dr. James Dobson, who would come out of the "symbolic" side, advocating for her to receive communion as well. If intellectual assent is required for the rites of baptism, communion, etc. - why was this different?