[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]
I presented a number of scriptures related to examples of christians receiving baptism in scripture, including Apostolic commands to crowds to be baptized, that included "believe, confess, hear, repent".
Friend, I FULLY acknowledged, affirmed and supported every word in every Scripture you quoted and specifically stated I accept the association. What I said is what is obvious - NONE of the Scriptures you offered remotely prescribed any
prerequisites for Baptism (or for going or teaching or any other part of the Great Commission).
And we simply disagree that we should replace what Scripture teaches with illustrations of things that just happen to be exampled in the Scripture - as if we are mandated to do exactly as we see in a few examples and are forbidden to do otherwise - it is the rubric Anabaptists (but ONLY when addressing Baptism) but I don't accept it.
You are baptizing babies that in all probability cannot believe, have not heard and are utterly incapable of repenting and confessing
I've been waiting for some MONERGIST (who happens to also be an Anabaptist) to bring up this point..... See - Anabaptists were all radical synergists. And the original argument from the Anabaptists was not from the Bible (there is no Scripture that says, "Thou canst NOT baptize _______________ " (fill in the blank with anything you want). Their argument was a by-product of their rant against Calvinists (and to a lesser degree Lutherans) and their Monergism. Babies were not to be baptized NOT because Scripture prohibits it (they realized, it doesn't) but because it's a waste of time (as the other main Anabaptist in this discussion has repeatedly said)
BECAUSE THOSE UNDER THE AGE OF X CANNOT DO THEIR PART IN JUSTIFICATION. Salvation is highly synergistic to the Anabaptist and so they will dismiss anything that even appears to eliminate the human side of the equation, the part the unsaved must do.
I get it. When a synergistic Baptist or Pentecostal (et al) talks about "But babies cannot...." I know exactly where they are coming from, and in their paradigm, it all makes sense. And many of them are HONEST enough to admit their unwillingness to baptize those under the age of X has NOTHING to do with any Scriptures or even examples about Baptism, it has to do with certain folks (too low in age or IQ or education) being ABLE to contribute their part (since Jesus only does PART of justification). But frankly.... the half dozen or so REFORMED Anabaptists I've met (all online) seem one big contradiction. All this emphasis on what God CANNOT do and what the dead MUST do seems so contradictory to what they so passionately (and correctly) say about what God can do and the dead can't do in every other application.
However, the reality is that your church is baptizing both the saved and unsaved on YOUR authority
No. On Christs.
Baptizing those who have expressed no wish to be baptized is not FORBIDDEN by scripture
See.... I can understand SOME Presbyterians (and some others) who baptize because Jesus said "Go... Baptize... Teach...." and because they believe that babies are people just like old folks. But to them, it's just a very odd (but cute and kinda sweet) ritual that does nothing. I disagree, but I "get it." But Anabaptist forbid it. Well.... they won't stop Grandma from doing it over the sink in her kitchen, but you know what I mean, lol.....
it does run contrarary to every example of baptism given in scripture (as I read them).
Well, we are reading EXACTLY the identical same words, lol. MennoSota already flatly admitting he is SPECULATING on what is NOT said. Then boldly rebuking any who in his opinion seem to be speculating on what is NOT said (go figure).
1. I don't agree. There are at least 4 occasions (a fairly high percentage of the examples) where it's not even remotely implied that all who were baptized were over the age of X or had first repented of their sins or had first accepted Jesus as their personal savior. It's just NOT the case that all the Baptisms were limited to that, in fact a pretty good percentage of the examples say NOTHING of the sort.
2. More importantly, I don't agree with your rubric - that we can only do what is exampled in the NT (even if all the examples in the NT supported the denials and prohibititions that Anabaptists make). NOWHERE ELSE do Anabapists employ this rule - only with baptism, and not universally there (for example, it seems every baptism in the NT was administered by a Hebrew male... but do Anabaptists prohibit Gentiles from administering baptism?). If this rubric was actually believed, they have to deny my baptism because nowhere in the bible is a blonde haired, blue eyed Germanic male baptized. A variant of this is, "If it's not specially ORDERED that we CAN do something - then it's prohibited." Well, then why baptize blonde/blue Germanic males? Why post on the internet? Why have youth pastors and ladies groups and powerpoint and.... and..... I can see the same argument used for not baptizing Blacks.
It is more like deciding that watching pornography on the internet is wrong because the apostles avoided 'sexual impurity' (even though they didn't have an internet).
But there is nothing that says the Apostles avoided children... or that Jesus taught them to neglect children.... or that God can't bless children. In fact,
I think the opposite is powerfully the point (I'm sure you know the verses I'm thinking of). Nothing in Scripture suggests God is impotent when it comes to children or that God can't bless children because children can't do their part to help bring that about. Again, this argument makes SOME sense coming from radical synergists.... it seems very strange coming from a monergist.
Those baptized should reasonable be expected to want to do those other things
If Jakob Arminius said that, I'd understand..... coming from you, I'm left scratching my head, lol....
When you teach, do you first require all to publicly state that they expect to do what you teaching them about?
For an infant, the baptism seems like just 'wishful thinking' with respect to them ever coming to "believe, confess, hear, repent".
Again, I could understand if Jakob Arminius believed that....
The Great Commission places baptism and teaching together (seeming to give them equal importance). The Bible says of teaching, "My Word shall not return to Me void but shall accomplish all for which I sent it." (Calvinists should have no problem with God's sovereignty). Your pastor preaches a sermon..... does he mandate that FIRST all must attain the age of X, weep buckets of tears in repentance, chant the Sinners Prayer and give adequate public documentation of their faith in Jesus BEFORE he'll allow them in the church or to hear his words? Does He tell God that God MUST cause everyone whom he does allow in the church to immediately attain the age of X, weep buckets of tears, chant the Sinner's Prayer and give adequate public testimony of their faith after the pastor says 6 words? But we trust the promise.... and the work of God.....
And remember - NO ONE HERE is isolating Baptism from anything! The baptism ceremony itself STRESSED the need for training, education, example, bringing them to church, etc., etc., etc., etc. NO ONE on the historic side of them is isolating going... teaching.... baptizing from ANY of the things you've mentioned. We're just not insisting on something Jesus never said, Scripture never commands (and yes, Scripture doesn't even illustrate - as if that mattered). That x,y,z are
prerequisites for going... baptizing.... teaching; that God CANNOT bless children; that little ones CANNOT believe (I keep mentioning John the Baptists who believed before he was born).
- Josiah
For certain, you are assessing the sacrament from the POV of a Baptist (or Anabaptist) who doesn't think much of it.
