If paedobaptism were taught...

[MennoSota]

If there is no scripture telling us when a person has the capacity to repent then you do a disservice by not allowing God to do His job and baptize those babies of believers who will teach their child the faith as they grow. Baptism and teaching go hand in hand.

Again, please answer these three questions.

Do you endorse baptizing unrepentant, dead in their trespasses and sins, people?

Do you agree that infants are dead in their trespasses and sins?

Do you agree that they cannot repent?

Three simple questions that pertain to paedobaptism.

 

[Lamb]

Again, please answer these three questions.

Do you endorse baptizing unrepentant, dead in their trespasses and sins, people?

Do you agree that infants are dead in their trespasses and sins?

Do you agree that they cannot repent?

Three simple questions that pertain to paedobaptism.

Babies are a part of "all nations" that Jesus told the disciples to baptize and teach, and parents have that authority to have their entire households baptized. Babies can have faith as is shown by John the Baptist leaping when Jesus, in the womb of Mary, came near. So babies can obviously receive what all other men receive when they are baptized which is the work of God. Yes, this answers all of your questions although not in the manner that you're demanding but in the manner according to how God has set up what baptism is in scriptures that YOU are in denial about.

 

[MennoSota]

Babies are a part of "all nations" that Jesus told the disciples to baptize and teach, and parents have that authority to have their entire households baptized. Babies can have faith as is shown by John the Baptist leaping when Jesus, in the womb of Mary, came near. So babies can obviously receive what all other men receive when they are baptized which is the work of God. Yes, this answers all of your questions although not in the manner that you're demanding but in the manner according to how God has set up what baptism is in scriptures that YOU are in denial about.

No it doesn't. It evades all three questions and attempts the very shell game that Josiah plays. My questions aren't hard to answer. I will answer them with parenthesis.

Do you endorse baptizing unrepentant, dead in their trespasses and sins, people? (No)

Do you agree that infants are dead in their trespasses and sins? (Yes)

Do you agree that they cannot repent? (We have no means of discerning this. We don't even know that John the Baptist repented in the womb. All we know is that the Spirit of God caused him to kick when Jesus was in Mary's womb. If an infant repented, how would we discern its repentance?)

See, it's really quite easy.

 

[MennoSota]

.

 

[atpollard]

Babies are a part of "all nations" ...

... so are unbelievers and the God hating reprobates of Romans 1 that God gave over to their sinful desires.

 

[Lamb]

... so are unbelievers and the God hating reprobates of Romans 1 that God gave over to their sinful desires.

Yes, but those unbelievers are not under the authority of believing parents who will "teach" the children. Baptism and teaching go had in hand. There is absolutely no reason to baptize someone who has no intention of being taught or will not be taught.

Even in the churches where infant baptism is practiced the pastors/priests make sure that the infants will continue to be taught the faith or they will not allow the baptism to take place. If you have parents who come to the church because THEIR parents want the baby baptized, the pastor has a long talk with them concerning this.

 

[MennoSota]

Yes, but those unbelievers are not under the authority of believing parents who will "teach" the children. Baptism and teaching go had in hand. There is absolutely no reason to baptize someone who has no intention of being taught or will not be taught.

Even in the churches where infant baptism is practiced the pastors/priests make sure that the infants will continue to be taught the faith or they will not allow the baptism to take place. If you have parents who come to the church because THEIR parents want the baby baptized, the pastor has a long talk with them concerning this.

So it's a dedication by the parents to be faithful to teach their children? If
It isn't a believers baptism at all. It is a sinners baptism with the parental vow to train up the child to be a good, Concord following, Lutheran.
No faith is given to the child when water touches them. No gift of the Holy Spirit is granted to the child when water touches them. It's just a dedication ceremony. It's no different than a Baptist dedication ceremony where parents and congregation vow to train up the child in the way s/he should go. God may or may not grant faith at a later time to the child.

It should be noted that there is no biblical command for a dedicational infant baptism. It is a ceremonial tradition created by the church, after the Apostles died, as a means of dedicating the church to a vow of training.
As long as there is no teaching that baptism regenerates and saves an infant or forces God to graciously impart faith upon the child, the ceremony is harmless. If baptismal regeneration is taught or inferred, then the teaching is from hell. It is unbiblical and dangerous.

 

[Josiah]

I have asked you for simple answers to three questions.

EXACTLY! You continue to just play "The Shall Game." Anything.... ANYTHING.... to avoid admitting what you have already PROVEN: The historic position is correct, there is no stated prohibition or mandate on AGE regarding Baptism,and the Anabaptist Tradition you parrot here is wrong, the one that dogmatically proclaims: The Bible states we are forbidden to baptize any under the age of X - prohibited to baptize PAEDO's, infants, and any under an age Baptists refuse to disclose.


Yes, you've rather shift the discussion to support the synergism of the radical Anabaptists who invented your Tradition on this in the 16th Century (even though you claim to be a monergist), but then you feel the need to shift it to ANYTHING, ANYTHING to avoid admitted what you have repeatedly proven: The Anabaptist Tradition of Anti-Paedobaptism is WRONG..... the Bible nowhere states some AGE before which Baptism is disallowed, and the historic tradition on this is RIGHT.... the Bible nowhere states some AGE before which Baptism is disallowed. You'd rather promote radical synergism than admit what you yourself have repeatedly proven: Your Anti-Paedobaptism Tradition is wrong.


If you want to promote synergism.... if you want to argue that God is rendered impotent if unbelievers don't do their part (first)... then start a thread on that. This one is about whether the Bible states an AGE which the recipient must attain before the supposed prohibition on baptism is lifted. Anti-Paedobaptism says yes (it just won't tell you what age that is), the historic view says there is not. You have proven the historic view correct and the Anabaptist one wrong. You just won't admit it. You'd rather promote radical synergism than admit what you've already PROVEN.




.

 

[MennoSota]

EXACTLY! You continue to just play "The Shall Game." Anything.... ANYTHING.... to avoid admitting what you have already PROVEN: The historic position is correct, there is no stated prohibition or mandate on AGE regarding Baptism,and the Anabaptist Tradition you parrot here is wrong, the one that dogmatically proclaims: The Bible states we are forbidden to baptize any under the age of X - prohibited to baptize PAEDO's, infants, and any under an age Baptists refuse to disclose.


Yes, you've rather shift the discussion to support the synergism of the radical Anabaptists who invented your Tradition on this in the 16th Century (even though you claim to be a monergist), but then you feel the need to shift it to ANYTHING, ANYTHING to avoid admitted what you have repeatedly proven: The Anabaptist Tradition of Anti-Paedobaptism is WRONG..... the Bible nowhere states some AGE before which Baptism is disallowed, and the historic tradition on this is RIGHT.... the Bible nowhere states some AGE before which Baptism is disallowed. You'd rather promote radical synergism than admit what you yourself have repeatedly proven: Your Anti-Paedobaptism Tradition is wrong.


If you want to promote synergism.... if you want to argue that God is rendered impotent if unbelievers don't do their part (first)... then start a thread on that. This one is about whether the Bible states an AGE which the recipient must attain before the supposed prohibition on baptism is lifted. Anti-Paedobaptism says yes (it just won't tell you what age that is), the historic view says there is not. You have proven the historic view correct and the Anabaptist one wrong. You just won't admit it. You'd rather promote radical synergism than admit what you've already PROVEN.




.

Josiah, you refuse to answer my three simple questions and continue your shell game. Please stop posting in this thread and trying to derail the topic. You are failing to address the topic and are getting upset when I politely tell you to actually address the topic. I am unsure as to why the moderators continue to allow you to derail this topic.

 

[atpollard]

Yes, but those unbelievers are not under the authority of believing parents who will "teach" the children. Baptism and teaching go had in hand. There is absolutely no reason to baptize someone who has no intention of being taught or will not be taught.

Even in the churches where infant baptism is practiced the pastors/priests make sure that the infants will continue to be taught the faith or they will not allow the baptism to take place. If you have parents who come to the church because THEIR parents want the baby baptized, the pastor has a long talk with them concerning this.

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." [Matthew 28:19-20]

... Just in case you were curious what God actually instructed you to do:

1. Go
2. Make discipes
3. Baptize them
4. Teach them

(When he said “make disciples”, I don’t think he meant by procreation.).

 

[atpollard]

There is absolutely no reason to baptize someone who has no intention of being taught or will not be taught.

What are the intentions of the baby?

 

[atpollard]

If you want to promote synergism.... if you want to argue that God is rendered impotent if unbelievers don't do their part (first)... then start a thread on that. This one is about whether the Bible states an AGE which the recipient must attain before the supposed prohibition on baptism is lifted.

TOPIC: If paedobaptism were taught ...

...in the Bible, I would believe it.
However, attempting to imply infants into the word "household" does not make paedobaptism a truth in scripture. It makes paedobaptism a feeling someone has about the word "household."
Someone mentioned that they don't let feelings determine their belief, but they let truth determine their belief.
How does a practice never endorsed in the Bible, but felt to be possible, somehow get taught as truth?

THIS topic is about scripture and paedobaptism, not “anti-paedobaptism” or “age X”.

 

[Lamb]

What are the intentions of the baby?

What were the intentions of the "entire households" that were baptized? You see, that isn't listed in scripture and neither is a demand of what the intention of the baby is within scripture. Baptism and teaching go hand in hand. The parents who are believers ensure that their child is taught the faith just like the Hebrews taught their children in the old testament and then the Jewish parents in the New Testament taught their children about the Messiah.

 

[Lamb]

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." [Matthew 28:19-20]

... Just in case you were curious what God actually instructed you to do:

1. Go
2. Make discipes
3. Baptize them
4. Teach them

(When he said “make disciples”, I don’t think he meant by procreation.).

How does one make a disciple without baptism or teaching in your opinion? Jesus states HOW disciples are made...baptizing and teaching.

 

[Josiah]

]THIS topic is about scripture and paedobaptism, not “anti-paedobaptism” or “age X”.

Obviously, flip sides of the identical topic.

Anti-Paedobaptism: The Bible states a prohibition/mandate on Baptism concerning AGE.
Historic: The Bible does not state a prohibition/mandate on Baptism concerning AGE.

Mennosota has gone to great lengths to prove the historic position correct and the Anabaptist position to be wrong.



Now, rather than admit that, both you and MennoSota have worked hard to evade admitting what you've so often proven (thus ending the thread). A felt need to switch the topic. Currently, it seems both of you would rather promote the radical synergism of the Anabaptists in stead of admitting what you've proven and ending this discussion/thread. MennoSota has tried to divert the discussion previously to several other topics.

No one has ever claimed that the Bible states we are forbidden to baptize any OVER the AGE of X. The whole AGE mandate is a Baptist thing. The historic position is that the Bible does NOT state an AGE mandate, N.O.T. The only way to substantiate something is not stated is to show no one can find such a statement. And no one htas. The Anabaptists who invented the Tradition of Anti-CHILDREN Baptism never even claimed this is found in the Bible. And in the 500 years since, no one (not one) has been able to substantiate the Anti-CHILDREN (age range) Bpatism is taught in the Bible. And MennoSota has been working for two solid years to prove there is not such teaching. So, "The Bible states that we are dogmatically forbidden to baptize any whohas not yet attained the age of .... we won't tell you" is wrong. According to the evidence MennoSota has provided. And so the historic position of "The Bible does NOT state any prohibition or mandate on Baptism regarding the AGE of the recipient " is correct. MennoSota just won't admit it (and thus end this thread/discussion.... and bring us all into agreement). To avoid the, he needs to change the topic. Perhaps to promote synergism. Or Credobaptism (a different Tradition rarely discussed here). Or Immersion Only Baptism (another Anabaptist Tradition rarely discussed here) or ... well... I lost count nearly two years ago as to the issues he keeps feeling the need to switch to....





.

 

[Josiah]

How does one make a disciple without baptism or teaching in your opinion? Jesus states HOW disciples are made...baptizing and teaching.

[MENTION=11]Lämmchen[/MENTION]



Some (IMO) very relevant points......


1. No one on the historic side has ever claimed that the Bible states that we are to baptize babies. No one on the historic side has ever claimed there is any age of X at all. No one on the historic side has ever argued that the Bible states, "Thou canst not baptize until after the age of X." For 1500 years, every Christian on the planet argued that the Bible states NOTHING about age vis-a-vis baptizing persons. Or race or gender or ethnicity or skin color or shoe-size or hair color for that matter;.


2. It was the Anabaptists who invented the AGE issue and created a whole Dogma and Tradition concerning THAT. They speak of "PAEDO" (the word is a very generic, general word for child; it can mean any under 18 or 20 but more often referred to one not having reached puberty; this is the word the Anabaptists used) or "infant" (a fairly undefined word but generally under the age of one or so). Or because Baptists REFUSE to ever disclose the mandated AGE, they will often speak of "too young." Note that PAEDO, child, infant, young - they are all about one issue: AGE. MennoSota argues that "child" "infant" "young" are terms entirely unrelated to age, but that's just silly. OBVIOUSLY they do. The whole issue of some AGE mandate or prohibition did not exist for over 1500 years; the Anabaptists invented it and created a new dogma and Tradition over it ("Anti-Paedobaptism"). The "age" thing is entirely, wholly, completely in THEIR court.


3. Understand, the Anabaptists invented two of their Baptism Traditions because of their radical synergism. The argument went, "Some are too young to do their part." God does not bless unless we first DO some things.... babies cannot do these things (or any things for that matter) therefore God cannot bless in Baptism and to do this is at best a waste of time but worse, it could suggest that God can (even does) do things without our FIRST doing thngs and cooperating." THAT was the aplogetic. Sound familiar? It's a radical synergistic argument. When Baptists copy/paste the Anabaptist apologetic, they are assuming radical synergism - just as we see in what MennoSota is posting in thread after thread (even threads not about Baptism). Note: The Anabaptists never even claimed their AGE mandate is found in the Bible (so even the inventors of the Tradition MennoSota parrots disagree with him about that); they invented this whole AGE thing to make Baptism "fit" in their radical synergism - just as we see MennoSota trying to do.


4. Don't let the Anabaptists drag us into a SILLY rubirc THEY reject. It is their ploy. The rubric they assumed (and force on others - if they will accept it) is this: We must do what we see exampled in the Bible and cannot do otherwise." Thus the constant mantra "Where do you see anyone under the age of X being baptized in the Bible?!?!?!" It's a stupid question, it presumes a stupid rubic. Where do we see baptized a Baptist or American or Negroid, or blonde-haired person baptized in the Bible? So where is "Anti-Blondbaptism" dogma? And of course, they reject their own apologetic (proving it every time they post on the internet; LITTLE of what they do - even in Baptism - is actually modeled in the Bible. Do they do ANYHING with Holy Communion has modeled in the Bible? Don't be suck into a silly rubric THEY THEMSELVES don't accept.


It might be helpful to expose the radical synergism that underpins these Anabaptist Traditions (the SOLE reason for them). And the silly apologetic of demanding a rule they themselves prove they reject even as they convey it.




Lämmchen ..... why has MennoSoda injected this EVERYWHERE for two solid years - never with any resolution? Why has this thread gone on for THIRTY pages? Simple: The truth is unavoidable: Their claim that the Bible states this prohibition/mandate on baptism based on AGE is missing, it's not true.... they THEMSELVES will PROVE that. As MennoSota has done over and over and over again. The Bible says NOTHING - not one word - about AGE vis-a-vis Baptism. His whole Tradition is wrong. The Historic Tradition (The Bible does not forbid or mandate baptism according to chronological age) is correct. He could admit that - but then his whole Tradition crashes.... and the thread would end. Consider that, Lämmchen. So, how to avoid saying what the poster has himself PROVEN (many times) and thus ending the discussion? Play "The Shell Game." Try to switch topics. The Baptists on this can be SO desperate that they would rather promote the radical synertism that caused the Anabaptists to invent these baptism traditions than to admit what they themselves proved. And "The Shell Game" can be played forever - just keep switching the subject. What page are we on now? What MennoSota and friends is doing is not rule violation (nor should it be) but it is obvious. And it's effective because people play along. By the way, I was taught the best way to insert the game is to ask compelling questions... ones you think your opponent won't resist. This thread would end the moment the supporters of this Anabaptist Tradition clearly admitted what they themselves so often have proven: The Bible states nothing about any AGE requirement/prohibition - thus their whole Tradition they parrot is wrong and the historic Tradition ("the Bible states no mandate/prohibition concerning AGE") is correct. But that would be shooting themselves. That would suggest some humility. Some accountability.


Remember too: Some of us have begun whole threads to present the historic view. NONE of the Anabaptist Tradition folks here have engaged in any discussion of such. Consider that. We just keep getting these two points: 1) The Bible states we are forbidden to baptize any under an AGE they REFUSE to disclose - in spite of they themselves proving this is wrong. 2) We can only do what is illustrated as done in the Bible and cannot otherwise - in spite of regarding the whole premise to be wrong and one they never follow. We get these echoed - over and over and over, endlessly. What page are we on?




Blessings!


Thank you!


- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=11]Lämmchen[/MENTION]



Some (IMO) very relevant points......


1. No one on the historic side has ever claimed that the Bible states that we are to baptize babies. No one on the historic side has ever claimed there is any age of X at all. No one on the historic side has ever argued that the Bible states, "Thou canst not baptize until after the age of X." For 1500 years, every Christian on the planet argued that the Bible states NOTHING about age vis-a-vis baptizing persons. Or race or gender or ethnicity or skin color or shoe-size or hair color for that matter;.


2. It was the Anabaptists who invented the AGE issue and created a whole Dogma and Tradition concerning THAT. They speak of "PAEDO" (the word is a very generic, general word for child; it can mean any under 18 or 20 but more often referred to one not having reached puberty; this is the word the Anabaptists used) or "infant" (a fairly undefined word but generally under the age of one or so). Or because Baptists REFUSE to ever disclose the mandated AGE, they will often speak of "too young." Note that PAEDO, child, infant, young - they are all about one issue: AGE. MennoSota argues that "child" "infant" "young" are terms entirely unrelated to age, but that's just silly. OBVIOUSLY they do. The whole issue of some AGE mandate or prohibition did not exist for over 1500 years; the Anabaptists invented it and created a new dogma and Tradition over it ("Anti-Paedobaptism"). The "age" thing is entirely, wholly, completely in THEIR court.


3. Understand, the Anabaptists invented two of their Baptism Traditions because of their radical synergism. The argument went, "Some are too young to do their part." God does not bless unless we first DO some things.... babies cannot do these things (or any things for that matter) therefore God cannot bless in Baptism and to do this is at best a waste of time but worse, it could suggest that God can (even does) do things without our FIRST doing thngs and cooperating." THAT was the aplogetic. Sound familiar? It's a radical synergistic argument. When Baptists copy/paste the Anabaptist apologetic, they are assuming radical synergism - just as we see in what MennoSota is posting in thread after thread (even threads not about Baptism). Note: The Anabaptists never even claimed their AGE mandate is found in the Bible (so even the inventors of the Tradition MennoSota parrots disagree with him about that); they invented this whole AGE thing to make Baptism "fit" in their radical synergism - just as we see MennoSota trying to do.


4. Don't let the Anabaptists drag us into a SILLY rubirc THEY reject. It is their ploy. The rubric they assumed (and force on others - if they will accept it) is this: We must do what we see exampled in the Bible and cannot do otherwise." Thus the constant mantra "Where do you see anyone under the age of X being baptized in the Bible?!?!?!" It's a stupid question, it presumes a stupid rubic. Where do we see baptized a Baptist or American or Negroid, or blonde-haired person baptized in the Bible? So where is "Anti-Blondbaptism" dogma? And of course, they reject their own apologetic (proving it every time they post on the internet; LITTLE of what they do - even in Baptism - is actually modeled in the Bible. Do they do ANYHING with Holy Communion has modeled in the Bible? Don't be suck into a silly rubric THEY THEMSELVES don't accept.


It might be helpful to expose the radical synergism that underpins these Anabaptist Traditions (the SOLE reason for them). And the silly apologetic of demanding a rule they themselves prove they reject even as they convey it.




Lämmchen ..... why has MennoSoda injected this EVERYWHERE for two solid years - never with any resolution? Why has this thread gone on for THIRTY pages? Simple: The truth is unavoidable: Their claim that the Bible states this prohibition/mandate on baptism based on AGE is missing, it's not true.... they THEMSELVES will PROVE that. As MennoSota has done over and over and over again. The Bible says NOTHING - not one word - about AGE vis-a-vis Baptism. His whole Tradition is wrong. The Historic Tradition (The Bible does not forbid or mandate baptism according to chronological age) is correct. He could admit that - but then his whole Tradition crashes.... and the thread would end. Consider that, Lämmchen. So, how to avoid saying what the poster has himself PROVEN (many times) and thus ending the discussion? Play "The Shell Game." Try to switch topics. The Baptists on this can be SO desperate that they would rather promote the radical synertism that caused the Anabaptists to invent these baptism traditions than to admit what they themselves proved. And "The Shell Game" can be played forever - just keep switching the subject. What page are we on now? What MennoSota and friends is doing is not rule violation (nor should it be) but it is obvious. And it's effective because people play along. By the way, I was taught the best way to insert the game is to ask compelling questions... ones you think your opponent won't resist. This thread would end the moment the supporters of this Anabaptist Tradition clearly admitted what they themselves so often have proven: The Bible states nothing about any AGE requirement/prohibition - thus their whole Tradition they parrot is wrong and the historic Tradition ("the Bible states no mandate/prohibition concerning AGE") is correct. But that would be shooting themselves. That would suggest some humility. Some accountability.


Remember too: Some of us have begun whole threads to present the historic view. NONE of the Anabaptist Tradition folks here have engaged in any discussion of such. Consider that. We just keep getting these two points: 1) The Bible states we are forbidden to baptize any under an AGE they REFUSE to disclose - in spite of they themselves proving this is wrong. 2) We can only do what is illustrated as done in the Bible and cannot otherwise - in spite of regarding the whole premise to be wrong and one they never follow. We get these echoed - over and over and over, endlessly. What page are we on?




Blessings!


Thank you!


- Josiah




.

Off-topic. Try again.

 

[atpollard]

I actually find the term “on the historic side” fascinating. From what we read in the Gospels, there was no baptizing by John the Baptist of those that did not come to him for His “baptism of repentance”, nor did Jesus baptized anyone whose sins He forgave. Jesus did not baptize the ‘little ones’ that he ordered no one should prevent from COMING TO HIM. There is no mention of “households” being baptized in the Gospels. When we come to Acts, we find commands that appear to indicate some sort of a link between baptism and other things ... like “believe” and “repent” and “disciples” (one who has chosen to become a follower). We find some entire households “heard and were baptized” and other entire households “believed and were baptized” and one entire household that was “baptized” and “served the Saints”. It is also in the book of acts (and the letters that follow) that we learn about the Judaisers that infiltrate the church and are attempting to draw people from what Jesus did back to what the Priests did. From a church of equals and servant-leaders back to a two-tiered hierarchy of the Priestly experts and the lowly laity. This is the First Century Church.

Fast forward to the Third Century and we find a church of Bishops that exercise political power as well as spiritual power over an elite priestly caste that rules an unequal laity. Within a century, those that disagree with the CHURCH are put to death. This is the “historic side” that ruled with an iron fist that bears no resemblance to the servant-leader that Christ spoke of guarding the welfare of a community of equals in Christ where EVERY member of the Body has a role to play. This iron fist was only broken by the courage of Luther to reject the “historic side” even as they tried to murder him for it, and due to the politically advantageous backing of German princes for secular reasons.

Yet for all of the rejection of the “historic side”, the former Catholic Priest was willing to go only as far back as the Third Century Church. It fell to others to ask if Christ might be calling the Reformation all the way back to the First Century Church as seen in God’s Holy Scripture.

So who is REALLY the “historic side”? That depends on whose history book you choose to read. If you read the history book written by the Church in the Third and Fourth centuries as it consolidated political power, then the Catholic church is the “historic side”. If you read the history book written by the Apostles and bound into the Holy Bible, then the “Sola Scriptura” Church is the “historic side”.

God Bless.

 

[MennoSota]

I actually find the term “on the historic side” fascinating. From what we read in the Gospels, there was no baptizing by John the Baptist of those that did not come to him for His “baptism of repentance”, nor did Jesus baptized anyone whose sins He forgave. Jesus did not baptize the ‘little ones’ that he ordered no one should prevent from COMING TO HIM. There is no mention of “households” being baptized in the Gospels. When we come to Acts, we find commands that appear to indicate some sort of a link between baptism and other things ... like “believe” and “repent” and “disciples” (one who has chosen to become a follower). We find some entire households “heard and were baptized” and other entire households “believed and were baptized” and one entire household that was “baptized” and “served the Saints”. It is also in the book of acts (and the letters that follow) that we learn about the Judaisers that infiltrate the church and are attempting to draw people from what Jesus did back to what the Priests did. From a church of equals and servant-leaders back to a two-tiered hierarchy of the Priestly experts and the lowly laity. This is the First Century Church.

Fast forward to the Third Century and we find a church of Bishops that exercise political power as well as spiritual power over an elite priestly caste that rules an unequal laity. Within a century, those that disagree with the CHURCH are put to death. This is the “historic side” that ruled with an iron fist that bears no resemblance to the servant-leader that Christ spoke of guarding the welfare of a community of equals in Christ where EVERY member of the Body has a role to play. This iron fist was only broken by the courage of Luther to reject the “historic side” even as they tried to murder him for it, and due to the politically advantageous backing of German princes for secular reasons.

Yet for all of the rejection of the “historic side”, the former Catholic Priest was willing to go only as far back as the Third Century Church. It fell to others to as if Christ might be calling the Reformation all the way back to the First Century Church as seen in God’s Holy Scripture.

So who is REALLY the “historic side”? That depends on whose history book you choose to read. If you read the history book written by the Church in the Third and Fourth centuries as it consolidated political power, then the Catholic church is the “historic side”. If you read the history book written by the Apostles and bound into the Holy Bible, then the “Sola Scriptura” Church is the “historic side”.

God Bless.

Off-topic try again.

 

[Josiah]

Some (IMO) very relevant points......


1. No one on the historic side has ever claimed that the Bible states that we are to baptize babies. No one on the historic side has ever claimed there is any age of X at all. No one on the historic side has ever argued that the Bible states, "Thou canst not baptize until after the age of X." For 1500 years, every Christian on the planet argued that the Bible states NOTHING about age vis-a-vis baptizing persons. Or race or gender or ethnicity or skin color or shoe-size or hair color for that matter;.


2. It was the Anabaptists who invented the AGE issue and created a whole Dogma and Tradition concerning THAT. They speak of "PAEDO" (the word is a very generic, general word for child; it can mean any under 18 or 20 but more often referred to one not having reached puberty; this is the word the Anabaptists used) or "infant" (a fairly undefined word but generally under the age of one or so). Or because Baptists REFUSE to ever disclose the mandated AGE, they will often speak of "too young." Note that PAEDO, child, infant, young - they are all about one issue: AGE. MennoSota argues that "child" "infant" "young" are terms entirely unrelated to age, but that's just silly. OBVIOUSLY they do. The whole issue of some AGE mandate or prohibition did not exist for over 1500 years; the Anabaptists invented it and created a new dogma and Tradition over it ("Anti-Paedobaptism"). The "age" thing is entirely, wholly, completely in THEIR court.


3. Understand, the Anabaptists invented two of their Baptism Traditions because of their radical synergism. The argument went, "Some are too young to do their part." God does not bless unless we first DO some things.... babies cannot do these things (or any things for that matter) therefore God cannot bless in Baptism and to do this is at best a waste of time but worse, it could suggest that God can (even does) do things without our FIRST doing thngs and cooperating." THAT was the aplogetic. Sound familiar? It's a radical synergistic argument. When Baptists copy/paste the Anabaptist apologetic, they are assuming radical synergism - just as we see in what MennoSota is posting in thread after thread (even threads not about Baptism). Note: The Anabaptists never even claimed their AGE mandate is found in the Bible (so even the inventors of the Tradition MennoSota parrots disagree with him about that); they invented this whole AGE thing to make Baptism "fit" in their radical synergism - just as we see MennoSota trying to do.


4. Don't let the Anabaptists drag us into a SILLY rubirc THEY reject. It is their ploy. The rubric they assumed (and force on others - if they will accept it) is this: We must do what we see exampled in the Bible and cannot do otherwise." Thus the constant mantra "Where do you see anyone under the age of X being baptized in the Bible?!?!?!" It's a stupid question, it presumes a stupid rubic. Where do we see baptized a Baptist or American or Negroid, or blonde-haired person baptized in the Bible? So where is "Anti-Blondbaptism" dogma? And of course, they reject their own apologetic (proving it every time they post on the internet; LITTLE of what they do - even in Baptism - is actually modeled in the Bible. Do they do ANYHING with Holy Communion has modeled in the Bible? Don't be suck into a silly rubric THEY THEMSELVES don't accept.


It might be helpful to expose the radical synergism that underpins these Anabaptist Traditions (the SOLE reason for them). And the silly apologetic of demanding a rule they themselves prove they reject even as they convey it.




Lämmchen ..... why has MennoSoda injected this EVERYWHERE for two solid years - never with any resolution? Why has this thread gone on for THIRTY pages? Simple: The truth is unavoidable: Their claim that the Bible states this prohibition/mandate on baptism based on AGE is missing, it's not true.... they THEMSELVES will PROVE that. As MennoSota has done over and over and over again. The Bible says NOTHING - not one word - about AGE vis-a-vis Baptism. His whole Tradition is wrong. The Historic Tradition (The Bible does not forbid or mandate baptism according to chronological age) is correct. He could admit that - but then his whole Tradition crashes.... and the thread would end. Consider that, Lämmchen. So, how to avoid saying what the poster has himself PROVEN (many times) and thus ending the discussion? Play "The Shell Game." Try to switch topics. The Baptists on this can be SO desperate that they would rather promote the radical synertism that caused the Anabaptists to invent these baptism traditions than to admit what they themselves proved. And "The Shell Game" can be played forever - just keep switching the subject. What page are we on now? What MennoSota and friends is doing is not rule violation (nor should it be) but it is obvious. And it's effective because people play along. By the way, I was taught the best way to insert the game is to ask compelling questions... ones you think your opponent won't resist. This thread would end the moment the supporters of this Anabaptist Tradition clearly admitted what they themselves so often have proven: The Bible states nothing about any AGE requirement/prohibition - thus their whole Tradition they parrot is wrong and the historic Tradition ("the Bible states no mandate/prohibition concerning AGE") is correct. But that would be shooting themselves. That would suggest some humility. Some accountability.


Remember too: Some of us have begun whole threads to present the historic view. NONE of the Anabaptist Tradition folks here have engaged in any discussion of such. Consider that. We just keep getting these two points: 1) The Bible states we are forbidden to baptize any under an AGE they REFUSE to disclose - in spite of they themselves proving this is wrong. 2) We can only do what is illustrated as done in the Bible and cannot otherwise - in spite of regarding the whole premise to be wrong and one they never follow. We get these echoed - over and over and over, endlessly. What page are we on?




Blessings!


Thank you!



.

I actually find the term “on the historic side” fascinating.

For 1500 years, there was no prohibition on baptism based on AGE (Paedo, infant, young, child, etc.). Not as dogma, not as praxis, not even as custom. It was the Anabaptists who invented that Tradition in the 16th Century. Thus, the historic view is to not employ this prohibition on baptism because of age.

f you read the history book written by the Apostles and bound into the Holy Bible, then the “Sola Scriptura” Church is the “historic side”.

And that Book never once states that those under the age of X are to be forbidden baptism. It doesn't even reveal anyone being denied baptism due to their having not yet attained a certain age. We don't find that in that Book. We don't find it in history until the mid 16th Century as enforced by some Anabaptists.


MennoSota has gone to great lengths for two solid years to undeniably PROVE this age prohibition is never declared in the Bible. The historic view is that the Bible does NOT state any prohibition on baptism due to age. MennoSota has proven this to be the case (over and over again, for two solid years).



See what I posted to Lamm



God Bless.


Josiah



.