Credobaptists - What about those with disabilities and baptism?

[MennoSota]

There is no such 'age of accountability' in the churches which baptize children.


What is the age, then?


There is no way that not having an age of accountabilty amounts to having an age of accountability. Not even if you repeat yourself another time and throw in your own favorite slur ("Baby Baptizers") several more times.

There is an age of confirmation, however. Is that accurate?

 

[Josiah]

There is an age of confirmation, however. Is that accurate?

No, it's wrong.

Except in the Roman Catholic Church, Confirmation is not required and not a Sacrament. And in no church (including the RCC) is it required to offer the classes at a certain age.

This thread is not about youth Bible classes, it's about the Anbaptist 16th Century invention of Anti-paedobaptism (anti-Children baptism) and Credobaptism (Mandate of FIRST choosing Jesus as one's personal Savior and giving adequate public proof of that) and often also the requirement to weep buckets of tears in repentance also as a divinely mandated prerequisite

"Age of Accountability" is an invented of the same German Anabaptist in the 16th Century. It too flows directly from his radical synergism, his argument that prior to the age of X a child need not be saved because their sin doesn't count.... thus, a way to get around the issue of in his opinion, a person under the age of X can't do his part to save himself. "No problem!" He insisted, "his sins don't count!" Of course, he just made that up. Out of thin air. Just like his view on Baptism.

 

[atpollard]

There is no such 'age of accountability' in the churches which baptize children.
What is the age, then?

Is the baptizing of a baby all that is required for that child to become a Christian brother/sister and part of the body of Christ? If something more is expected at some future point, then that becomes the point that Pedrito is referencing as the “age of accountability” (the point when the baptized claims the faith for their own).

 

[Josiah]

Is the baptizing of a baby all that is required for that child to become a Christian brother/sister and part of the body of Christ? If something more is expected at some future point, then that becomes the point that Pedrito is referencing as the “age of accountability” (the point when the baptized claims the faith for their own).

So.... God cannot save until one performs a good work of "claiming" it? God can't bless until the time when the receiver "claims" it? I think of the rising of Lazarus..... Did Jesus give him life or did he gain life when and because he claimed it?



"Age of Accountibility"


The "Age of Accountability" is a 16th Century invention of radical synergism.... the whole idea is that since those under the age of X can't do their part in the salvation of themselves, they thus don't need to be saved because their sins don't count. It's totally made up, NOTHING in Scripture REMOTELY teaches it and NOTHING before the 16th Century affirmed this, but it is a "logical" necessity for radical synergists: I mean, what do you do when God is not all-powerful, when God does not save, when God merely HELPS people save themselves? Of course, an hour old baby CANNOT do whatever that is. Those who invented this were not stupid enough to argue that those under X are perfect as God is perfect, so they didn't say they have no sinfulness only that "it don't count" until that magical age of X (which, just as in their other invention, Anti-Paedobaptism, is never disclosed).


The traditional view is that ALL have sin (it's exactly what the Bible says) and that all are accountability for that (Need physical proof? Death. The punishment of sin is death.... do those under the age of X die?). And since synergism is wrong (in the radical form of the inventors of this dogma or in more mild forms) is just wrong: We don't save ourselves, in whole or in part - JESUS is the Savior (the job's taken). If we are saved, it is NOT because we were old enough to perform the works that save, it's because God is loving enough to provide us with the Savior. And can God give faith to one under the age of X? Well, John the Baptist believed before he was born.....




But back to the issue of this thread, the 16th Century invention of the radical synergists of Credobaptism - Anti-paedobaptism



- Josiah

 

[Albion]

Is the baptizing of a baby all that is required for that child to become a Christian brother/sister and part of the body of Christ?

It marks him as a part of the church of Christ.

If something more is expected at some future point, then that becomes the point that Pedrito is referencing as the “age of accountability” (the point when the baptized claims the faith for their own).

But there is no 'AGE OF ACCOUNTABILITY.' That would require that there be an identified age--6 years, 12, 15, 21, or some other defined age, like we have in society for drinking, voting, or driving a car. There is none such in the case of Baptism, just that everyone must have a conversion experience at some time in his life.

 

[Josiah]

If something more is expected at some future point.

It's the Anabaptists who IMPOSE all this mandated chronological sequence that we must obey or else God is rendered impotent to give/bless/regenerate..... No one else is imposing any chronology on God.


Friend, you seem to switch back and forth between whether there are CO-requisites (the view of traditionalists) or a chronological sequence of PRE-requisites (the Baptist view). Friend, NO ONE is saying that baptism is the only thing anyone is ever to do. God calls us to MANY things..... teaching, evangelism, ministry, good works, love, moral perfection to name just a few, and the traditional view of baptism is NOT "ignoring" any of them. In fact, in the traditional baptism ceremonies, quite a big point is made of teaching the child, bringing them regularly for worship, etc. - all things Baptists NEVER mention at Baptism (again, it's the traditional view that speaks of corequisites, the baptist view never does).

The traditional view doesn't micromanage God saving/redeeming/sanctifying work - telling God exactly HOW He can do (and can't do) this. He commands a bunch of things, and we do them. In the belief that God can use what He has commanded us to do. You know the verse where God says, "My word shall not return to me void but shall accomplish all that I purpose." Does that mean that He can ONLY use the word? Does it mean that at the microsecond the sound waves reach the hears of the receiver, God's purpose is instantly fulfilled? Is God impotent to use anything else? Does the verse state, "..... my word shall not return to me void unless the person is under the age of X?" No one KNOWS exactly HOW God performs the miracle of life (physical or spiritual), and I find the Anabaptist obsession in micromanaging God so much in this a bit absurd and obviously a denial of God's Sovereignty, there is a miracle here.... and miracles don't have to be explained to be true. The whole point of miracles is that God CAN, not that God CANNOT.

"Age of Accountability" is an invention of Anabaptists in the 16th Century. It too flows directly from radical synergism, the argument that prior to the age of X a child need not be saved because their sin doesn't count.... thus, a way to get around the issue of in its opinion, a person under the age of X can't do his part to save himself. "No problem!" the Anabaptist shouts, "his sins don't count!" Of course, they just made that up. Out of thin air. Just like their view on Baptism. But yes, those who 'buy' the Anabaptist view of Baptism (born out of radical synergism) are almost required to also 'buy' the Anabaptist invention of the "Age of Accountability." IMO, it too is contradictory to Reformed Theology and so it is SO incredible to find Reformed Christians echoing this part of Anabaptist theology.



- Josiah

 

[Lamb]

Is the baptizing of a baby all that is required for that child to become a Christian brother/sister and part of the body of Christ? If something more is expected at some future point, then that becomes the point that Pedrito is referencing as the “age of accountability” (the point when the baptized claims the faith for their own).

If the baptized baby remains in faith then yes, that baby is a brother and sister in Christ. Baptizing and teaching are to go together. At some point that child will make a confession of faith that confirms what the child already believes concerning the Savior and forgiveness of sins.

 

[Pedrito]

From Post #240: Not even if you repeat yourself another time and throw in your own favorite slur ("Baby Baptizers") several more times.

Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

As I use the term, “Baby Baptisers” is a general and accurate descriptive term. There is no hint of disparagement on my part in its use.

Perhaps Albion (with others) is so accustomed to seeing the slurs and snide remarks that “normal Christians” throw at their opponents (including each other), that he assumes everyone acts like that. (Has he ever been guilty of it, himself?)

It might have been noticed that I also use the terms “Immersionist” and “Immersionists” in the same vein. They too are general and accurate descriptive terms.


I would never use a deliberately dishonest term such as “soul sleep”.

 

[Albion]

From Post #240: Not even if you repeat yourself another time and throw in your own favorite slur ("Baby Baptizers") several more times.

Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

As I use the term, “Baby Baptisers” is a general and accurate descriptive term. There is no hint of disparagement on my part in its use.

Then let's use infant baptizers or Paedobaptizers like everyone else.

And if you are going to quote me and address me, talk to me, not about me.

 

[MennoSota]

It marks him as a part of the church of Christ.

So it's merely denominational dogma?

 

[meluckycharms]

Did we ever figure out if people with disabilities and cannot be baptized fo to heaven?

 

[atpollard]

Did we ever figure out if people with disabilities and cannot be baptized fo to heaven?

Credobaptist answer: If they can believe, then they can be baptized.
Paedobaptist answer: Anyone can be baptized.

Everyone seemed to agree that who gets into heaven is Gods decision, not man's decision, and God can certainly show them Grace if He chooses to (with or without baptism).
(There is some question whether 16th Century Anabaptists would allow them to be baptized, but we have no 16th Century Anabaptists on CH to respond and clarify.)

 

[Albion]

DOUBLE POST

 

[Albion]

Credobaptist answer: If they can believe, then they can be baptized.
Padeobaptist answer: Anyone can be baptized.

It is not correct to say that Paedobaptists answer, “Anyone can be baptized."

I assure you that, for example, a Hindu family with young children showing up at a Catholic church to ask the pastor to baptize them--because they hope that their baptismal certificates will impress Immigration officials in the USA or Austria--WILL NOT BE BAPTIZED.

 

[meluckycharms]

It is not correct to say that Paedobaptists answer, “Anyone can be baptized."

I assure you that, for example, a Hindu family with young children showing up at a Catholic church to ask the pastor to baptize them--because they hope that their baptismal certificates will impress Immigration officials in the USA or Austria--WILL NOT BE BAPTIZED.

I cannot speak for all paedobaptists. However, as a former Catholic, a confession of faith is still required. In this case, from the parents. Parents must confess their "Catholic" faith to the priest and the church and make a vow that they will raise the child in a "Catholic" home and teach the child Catholicism. This of course would be impossible for the "Hindu" example because it would require the Hindu parents to:

1. Renounce their Hindu faith.
2. Convert to Catholicism.
3. Attend catechism classes so they actually know what the Catholic faith actually teaches.
4. Become baptized themselves into the Catholic church and receive the other sacraments (confession, communion, ect)

This would be a pretty heavy price to pay for a Hindu couple trying to improve "international relations".

 

[Josiah]

I cannot speak for all paedobaptists. However, as a former Catholic, a confession of faith is still required. In this case, from the parents. Parents must confess their "Catholic" faith to the priest and the church and make a vow that they will raise the child in a "Catholic" home and teach the child Catholicism. This of course would be impossible for the "Hindu" example because it would require the Hindu parents to:

1. Renounce their Hindu faith.
2. Convert to Catholicism.
3. Attend catechism classes so they actually know what the Catholic faith actually teaches.
4. Become baptized themselves into the Catholic church and receive the other sacraments (confession, communion, ect)

This would be a pretty heavy price to pay for a Hindu couple trying to improve "international relations".

Good point.....


The Anabaptists among us in this discussion insist on Baptism being in absolute isolation..... but the traditional view is that Baptism belongs in context. Not a (non-biblical) set of divinely prescribed set of chronological prerequisites but rather as co-requisites, things that belong TOGETHER. The point is not isolated, disconnected, chronolgical sequence that MUST be followed or God is rendered impotent to bless.


At the traditional baptism ceremony, there is mentioned several other requisites including confessing the faith, instruction in the Christian faith, regular church attendance, etc. Parents are reminded of the requisite to raise their child in the Christian faith. ALL these are things God commands and God uses for His purposes and God often blesses. They are not in ISOLATION. But nor are they in some divinely mandated chronological "1,2,3,4,5" SEQUENCE that MUST be just like that or God throws up His hands in despair because you just rendered Him impotent to bless and give the gift of faith. For 2000 years, we've been noting teaching, confession, repenting, worshipping, etc. at the Baptism ceremonly NOT because there is a mandated "1,2,3,4" sequence to this that the Bible mandates but because they are all requists, all important, all used by God .... they "shall not return to me void but shall accomplish all for which I sent it."


A blessed Lenten season to all....



- Josiah

 

[Albion]

I cannot speak for all paedobaptists. However, as a former Catholic, a confession of faith is still required.

Of course.

Let's hope this puts an end to the mischaracterizing of the Paedobaptist position.


And, by the way, I could have chosen Lutheran or Christian Reformed or some other church/pastor for my illustration--one that treats the process of conversion differently from the way you outlined--and there still would have been no chance of baptisms being performed.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]

At the traditional baptism ceremony, there is mentioned several other requisites including confessing the faith, instruction in the Christian faith, regular church attendance, etc. Parents are reminded of the requisite to raise their child in the Christian faith. ALL these are things God commands and God uses for His purposes and God often blesses. They are not in ISOLATION. But nor are they in some divinely mandated chronological "1,2,3,4,5" SEQUENCE that MUST be just like that or God throws up His hands in despair because you just rendered Him impotent to bless and give the gift of faith. For 2000 years, we've been noting teaching, confession, repenting, worshipping, etc. at the Baptism ceremonly NOT because there is a mandated "1,2,3,4" sequence to this that the Bible mandates but because they are all requists, all important, all used by God .... they "shall not return to me void but shall accomplish all for which I sent it."


.

I cannot speak for all paedobaptists. However, as a former Catholic, a confession of faith is still required.

Let's hope this puts an end to the mischaracterizing of the Paedobaptist position.

Early on, in another thread on the topic of Baptism, one of our Anabaptist (on this) friends stressed that there is a difference in whether we see various things as CO-requisites or PRE-requisites. I noted then that that was very insightful (he's since entirely abandoned all that).

Both "sides" note a number of things God wants to happen, it's just the (sole) view from 63 AD at the latest until 1523 (and by far the majority view today) is that they are simply all requisites (he'd say CO-requisites): Things God can and does use.... "they shall not return to me void but shall accomplish all for which I purpose". Not until a German individual in 1523 did anyone see in the Bible or just assume that there is a very exactly, "Step 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6...." chronological sequence to all this (that the Bible just forgot to note) that if we don't DO all this in that precise chronological sequence, God is rendered impotent. Why did that Anabaptist invent that (and also the "Age of Accountability)? Because they were required by his very radical synergism. The traditional view sees all this as a "set" - all tools in the hands of the Carpenter- impotent in themselves but in the hands of the Miracle Worker, the Author and Lord and Giver of Life. I disagree with the CCC that all these are REQUIRED (what about the thief on the Cross?) BUT I do see them as a "set."

I think the reason why we can historically trace infant baptism to around 63 AD.... the reason why we see whole families being baptized in the Bible... the reason why no one thought of anti-paedobaptism and credobaptism until one dude in 1523.... is because we saw all these as a "set" and tools in the hands of a LOVING, giving, blessing, God who is love and who is the Author and GIVER of Life. The orthodox/historical view sees all this together.... and we view it in the context of community and family. And the VAST majority of Christians still do. But of course, radical individualism and synergism have infected Christianity and the impact of that can be seen.



A blessed Lenten season to all....



- Josiah




.

 

[atpollard]

It is not correct to say that Paedobaptists answer, “Anyone can be baptized."

I assure you that, for example, a Hindu family with young children showing up at a Catholic church to ask the pastor to baptize them--because they hope that their baptismal certificates will impress Immigration officials in the USA or Austria--WILL NOT BE BAPTIZED.

The question was specifically about "people with disabilities". [see post #251]
Do Padeobaptists have ANY restrictions on children with disabilities that they do not have on any other children?
Credobaptists require belief ... disabled or non-disabled.
I stand by my answer to the question that was asked (talk about Hindus is simply you looking for a disagreement).

Because the Bible does not confine baptism to believers and does indicate that whole households--which almost certainly must have included children--were baptized without controversy. Obviously, an adult would be addressed by a missionary on the basis of belief, because no one would baptize a person who did not believe in Christ. Why, indeed would such a person even consent to Christian baptism?? But this doesn't deal with children one way or the other.

"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household," Paul said to the jail keeper in Philippi.

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!

 

[meluckycharms]

Of course.

Let's hope this puts an end to the mischaracterizing of the Paedobaptist position.


And, by the way, I could have chosen Lutheran or Christian Reformed or some other church/pastor for my illustration--one that treats the process of conversion differently from the way you outlined--and there still would have been no chance of baptisms being performed.

Agreed. The same statement would apply to Methodists too. Statement of faith is required by the parents on behalf of the child for the very same reasons.