If paedobaptism were taught...

[MennoSota]

Acts 16:14-15,30-33 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us. Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.




See the bolded parts in red.

No mention of infants anywhere.
So, I provided multiple verses showing credobaptism in the Bible and you provide zero verses showing paedobaptism in the Bible.
This really should close the book on the debate.
However, unquestioning devotion to denomination dogmas is a trademark of Lutherans, Romans, EOCs and Episcopalians. Life might come to a bitter end if traditions were to be abandoned due to factual truth...so better to ignore truth and just cling to feelings established by the denomination.
Yep, if paedobaptism could be shown in the Bible I would believe it, but it just cannot be shown, thus it has no merit.

 

[atpollard]

Acts 16:14-15,30-33 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us. Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.

See the bolded parts in red.

If you start the story of Lydia a little earlier, you will discover that there was a large group of women WORKING at the water and Paul went to them to preach the Good News. Lydia was among those women. You would do well to learn what is involved in making Purple Cloth and it will explain what the women were doing working by the water. Notice carefully that Lydia believes and is baptized along with her household tight there at the water where Paul was preaching and the women were working. It was only AFTER that that Paul goes to visit her house. That means that Lydia’s entire household (or at least all of it that was baptized) was present at the water there the women were working. The Baptized household of Lydia was old enough to take to work.

Women don’t generally scrub and dye cloth with a baby on their hip.

 

[Albion]

No mention of infants anywhere.

You're only fooling yourself, you know. Every one of the bolded sections prove my point.

But if you feel you must, go on submitting to your denominations demands. Just don't insult my intelligence in the process by telling me that what is right before our eyes really isn't there.





.

 

[MennoSota]

You're only fooling yourself, you know. Every one of the bolded sections prove my point.

But if you feel you must, go on submitting to your denominations demands. Just don't insult my intelligence in the process by telling me that what is right before our eyes really isn't there.





.

LOL, your opinion that household equals infant baptism is a mere feeling with literally no factual evidence. The fooling going on is entirely you as you claim a fantasy as reality.
There is no denominational demand. Never once have I ever brought up my denomination as the place where I find teaching on baptism. THAT is your crutch as YOU cannot conceive of taking the Bible literally for what it actually shares. Instead you grip with an iron grasp to your churches teaching, even though nothing in the Bible supports it. Not even the two verses with the word "household" support paedobaptism. Literally NOTHING in the Bible supports it. Yet, you amazingly think you have an airtight argument.

 

[Albion]

LOL, your opinion that household equals infant baptism is a mere feeling with literally no factual evidence..

I have repeatedly shown you the evidence, and you have been able to show us absolutely nothing that might counter it.

We know, therefore, that you are simply parroting your denominations line.

 

[MennoSota]

I have repeatedly shown you the evidence, and you have been able to show us absolutely nothing that might counter it.

We know, therefore, that you are simply parroting your denominations line.

There is no evidence.
You have shown two verses with no children mentioned. You have expressed what you read into the word "household."
I cannot counter an undocumented opinion that you are passing off as fact.
I have provided multiple verses where the person's confess faith and baptism then takes place.
The evidence is overwhelmingly 100% in favor of credobaptism.

 

[Josiah]

NO traditional/orthodox Christian is founding a dogma on the "speculation" that everyone in the households in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 were under the age 13, it was that Anabaptist in the late 16th Century who invented a dogma insisting that all of them were over that age.


The ministry of baptism has no prohibitions stated in the Bible about age, race, gender, language, skin color, shoe size, weight, IQ, financial status, hair length or nationality.




IF some dude 1500 years after Jesus, suddenly, out of the blue, invented a DOGMA that it is heretical, prohibited, banned, forbidden to baptize anyone over 6 feet, 3 inches tall - I'm sure Baptists would insist, "Where does the Bible state THAT? And how come NO ONE saw that or did that for 1500 years"?


IF some dude, 1900 years after Jesus, suddenly, out of the blue, invented a DOGMA that Black people are excluded from the Commandment,"Thou Shalt Not Kill", I'm sure most Baptists would insist, "Where does the Bible state THAT? And how come not one Christian on Earth ever saw that for 1900 years?


.

You have shown two verses with no children mentioned. You have expressed what you read into the word "household."

You have been shown household baptisms (for example Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33) and you dogmatically insisted they were NONE under the age of X (the age you refuse to declare). But it's PURE speculation. A whole dogma based on pure speculation. And an ABSURD premise that we can do ONLY exactly as was done in Genesis - Revelation and cannot do othereise, a premise you reject and repudiate and don't follow yourself.


NO one is founding a new dogma on these records of household baptisms by declaring, "NONE was OVER the age of X (but we won't tell you what age that was)."

I have provided multiple verses where the person's confess faith and baptism then takes place.

A point you insist is irrelevant. And a point you reject. Is EVERYTHING you do exactly as was done in SOME of the examples found in Genesis - Revelation? Do you do NOTHING that is not done in examples found in Genesis - Revelation? Nope. NOT AT ALL. Since you yourself entirely reject your own point and don't follow it yourself (in much of anything), you are either being absurd or hypocritical.





.

 

[Lamb]

There is no evidence.
You have shown two verses with no children mentioned. You have expressed what you read into the word "household."
I cannot counter an undocumented opinion that you are passing off as fact.
I have provided multiple verses where the person's confess faith and baptism then takes place.
The evidence is overwhelmingly 100% in favor of credobaptism.

Can you provide proof where there were no children in the households? The odds are not in your favor on this according to historical facts of how the Jews/Israelites felt about family and children being a blessing from God besides the fact that they did not have birth control AND the servants and their families were considered part of the household. No, the odds are NOT on your side of this.

 

[MennoSota]

You have been shown household baptisms (for example Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33) and you dogmatically insisted they were NONE under the age of X (the age you refuse to declare). But it's PURE speculation. A whole dogma based on pure speculation. And an ABSURD premise that we can do ONLY exactly as was done in Genesis - Revelation and cannot do othereise, a premise you reject and repudiate and don't follow yourself.


NO one is founding a new dogma on these records of household baptisms by declaring, "NONE was OVER the age of X (but we won't tell you what age that was)."




A point you insist is irrelevant. And a point you reject. Is EVERYTHING you do exactly as was done in SOME of the examples found in Genesis - Revelation? Do you do NOTHING that is not done in examples found in Genesis - Revelation? Nope. NOT AT ALL. Since you yourself entirely reject your own point and don't follow it yourself (in much of anything), you are either being absurd or hypocritical.





.

Nope.
I state that there is no observable proof that infants were in fact baptized in the household of Lydia or the jailer.
The fact is that the household was baptized. The speculation is that infants were in the house and that they were baptized. The latter is entirely speculative with zero actual evidence. Why do you dispute truth in this fact?

A second fact.
Nowhere do we observe infants being baptized as a means of giving them faith and the Holy Spirit.
A third fact.
We see confessing, repentant sinners being baptized in the Bible. We never see unrepentant, non-confessing sinners being baptized.

These are all observable facts. They are not church dogmas. They were not conjured up as facts in the 1500s by anabaptists. They were written down by men inspired by God to record the events that took place in the early church.
Facts, Josiah, trump speculation and church dogma that is built upon such speculation.
I thought you embraced truth over feelings, Josiah. Do you really?
I have laid out the observable truth and leave speculation behind on this matter. The Bible gives us much to observe and factually discuss. Can you let go of your speculation as the source of your dogma?

 

[MennoSota]

Can you provide proof where there were no children in the households? The odds are not in your favor on this according to historical facts of how the Jews/Israelites felt about family and children being a blessing from God besides the fact that they did not have birth control AND the servants and their families were considered part of the household. No, the odds are NOT on your side of this.

There is no need to provide proof when the entire issue is speculative. You are speculating that there were infants. You have no proof.
What do we factually observe in the Bible? Upon the actual facts we can make an educated argument. Speculation has no base upon which you can build a truthful dogma.
I have laid out all the verses on baptism provided in the book of Acts. What do we factually observe, upon which we can fundamentally build our understanding of baptism? We cannot build a strong argument on speculation. Therefore paedobaptism has a very weak argument because it is entirely based on speculation.

 

[Josiah]

Nope.
I state that there is no observable proof that infants were in fact baptized

Nope. Your whole apologetic is founded on your claim that "EVERY baptism in the Bible was of those over the age of X." "ALL the baptisms in the Bible were of those over the age of X." "NO ONE baptized in the Bible was under the age of X" "There were no baptisms of anyone under the age of X." WHY THIS MATTERS you will not say (since you don't give a rip what is or is not done in the Bible) and you REFUSE to show this point (you view as irrelevant) even matters. You've been directed to Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 and asked how this proves your (irrelevant) claim is true. 90% of the time you ignore it because it doesn't matter if it's true or because exempt it from truth ("I don't need to show it's true") or because you speculate that households never include those under the age of X. The rest of the time you prove your claim wrong but it doesn't matter.

The speculation is that infants were in the house and that they were baptized. The latter is entirely speculative with zero actual evidence

EXACTLY! Your ENTIRE premise, your CONSTANT claim, the whole FOUNDATION of your apologetic rests on your pure speculation that everyone in those households was over the age of X. And you have NOTHING to show that's true (as you've admitted).

No one is saying, "We can baptize those over 6 feet tall because everyone baptized in Acts 16:15 was over 6 feet tall. That's your silly apologetic.

Those unconvinced of this weird dogma invented by that radical synergist in the late 16th Century is unconvincing because everyone baptized in Acts 16:15 was under the age of X (but we won't tell you what age that is). We're unconvinced of DOGMA invented out of thin air 1500 years after Jesus because Scripture nowhere teaches this (as you've proven) and because the command to baptize doesn't state any prohibition based on the age of X, and because NO ONE ON THE PLANET Earth saw the verse stating this for over 1500 years (and btw, nor can you).

Nowhere do we observe infants being baptized

.... nor those of Oriental or Negroid races. So do you demand, AS DOGMA, that it is forbidden in the Bible to baptize them and is heresy, prohibited, invalid, mockery to baptize them because there is no obvious EXAMPLE of them being baptized in Genesis - Revelation?

So do you demand, AS DOGMA, that it is forbidden in the Bible for one who is not 100% of the Hebrew/Jewish physical race to baptize because there are NO OBVIOUS EXAMPLES of any non-Hebrew administering baptism in Genesis - Revelati0n?

So do you - AS DOGMA - state it is forbidden to baptize in a tank back behind a curtain, that is heretical and forbidden and a mockery because there are no OBVIOUS EXAMPLES of that in Genesis - Revelation?

So do you DOGMATICALLY declare it's heresy and forbidden to ride a bicycle because there are NO OBVIOUS EXAMPLES of that done in Genesis - Revelation?

So Do you insist - AS DOGMA - that it is forbidden, heresy, mockery - to pass around in the pews including to women and kids trays with little plastic cups with squirts of Welch's Grape Juice and a bowl of little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread because NONE OF THAT is even once done like that in Genesis - Revelation?

Nope. You yourself reject your own apologetic. To use it is absurd at best or just plain hypocritical.

You WILL NOT show your claim is true.... and you yourself reject your own apologetic.


And remember, YOU are the one DEMANDING that WE ALL (including you) "scrap" all tradition (how persons, churches, denominations understand and interpret things) and go ONLY by what the words of the Bible state. But so far, you've been unwilling or unable to give even one Scripture and all you do is parrot - on and on and on, like a broken record - the verbatim tradition of your denomination. ALL you do is THE EXACT THING you forbid and repudiate.




.

 

[Arsenios]

Nope. Your whole apologetic is founded on your claim that "EVERY baptism in the Bible was of those over the age of X." "ALL the baptisms in the Bible were of those over the age of X." "NO ONE baptized in the Bible was under the age of X" "There were no baptisms of anyone under the age of X." WHY THIS MATTERS you will not say (since you don't give a rip what is or is not done in the Bible) and you REFUSE to show this point (you view as irrelevant) even matters. You've been directed to Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 and asked how this proves your (irrelevant) claim is true. 90% of the time you ignore it because it doesn't matter if it's true or because exempt it from truth ("I don't need to show it's true") or because you speculate that households never include those under the age of X. The rest of the time you prove your claim wrong but it doesn't matter.







EXACTLY! Your ENTIRE premise, your CONSTANT claim, the whole FOUNDATION of your apologetic rests on your pure speculation that everyone in those households was over the age of X. And you have NOTHING to show that's true (as you've admitted).

No one is saying, "We can baptize those over 6 feet tall because everyone baptized in Acts 16:15 was over 6 feet tall. That's your silly apologetic.

Those unconvinced of this weird dogma invented by that radical synergist in the late 16th Century is unconvincing because everyone baptized in Acts 16:15 was under the age of X (but we won't tell you what age that is). We're unconvinced of DOGMA invented out of thin air 1500 years after Jesus because Scripture nowhere teaches this (as you've proven) and because the command to baptize doesn't state any prohibition based on the age of X, and because NO ONE ON THE PLANET Earth saw the verse stating this for over 1500 years (and btw, nor can you).






.... nor those of Oriental or Negroid races. So do you demand, AS DOGMA, that it is forbidden in the Bible to baptize them and is heresy, prohibited, invalid, mockery to baptize them because there is no obvious EXAMPLE of them being baptized in Genesis - Revelation?

So do you demand, AS DOGMA, that it is forbidden in the Bible for one who is not 100% of the Hebrew/Jewish physical race to baptize because there are NO OBVIOUS EXAMPLES of any non-Hebrew administering baptism in Genesis - Revelati0n?

So do you - AS DOGMA - state it is forbidden to baptize in a tank back behind a curtain, that is heretical and forbidden and a mockery because there are no OBVIOUS EXAMPLES of that in Genesis - Revelation?

So do you DOGMATICALLY declare it's heresy and forbidden to ride a bicycle because there are NO OBVIOUS EXAMPLES of that done in Genesis - Revelation?

So Do you insist - AS DOGMA - that it is forbidden, heresy, mockery - to pass around in the pews including to women and kids trays with little plastic cups with squirts of Welch's Grape Juice and a bowl of little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread because NONE OF THAT is even once done like that in Genesis - Revelation?

Nope. You yourself reject your own apologetic. To use it is absurd at best or just plain hypocritical.

You WILL NOT show your claim is true.... and you yourself reject your own apologetic.


And remember, YOU are the one DEMANDING that WE ALL (including you) "scrap" all tradition (how persons, churches, denominations understand and interpret things) and go ONLY by what the words of the Bible state. But so far, you've been unwilling or unable to give even one Scripture and all you do is parrot - on and on and on, like a broken record - the verbatim tradition of your denomination. ALL you do is THE EXACT THING you forbid and repudiate.




.

Ya Gotta watch it with these rants, Josiah - Especially when you jump on someone for ignoring Tradition in the name of Sola Scripture and then holding a view that is Nolo Scriptural...

I mean, you better be really really careful here...

Because, you scruffy dog you...

Ye're a-gonna end up Orthodox!

Jes' sayin'...

Ya better watch it!


Arsenios.

 

[MennoSota]

Nope. Your whole apologetic is founded on your claim that "EVERY baptism in the Bible was of those over the age of X." "ALL the baptisms in the Bible were of those over the age of X." "NO ONE baptized in the Bible was under the age of X" "There were no baptisms of anyone under the age of X." WHY THIS MATTERS you will not say (since you don't give a rip what is or is not done in the Bible) and you REFUSE to show this point (you view as irrelevant) even matters. You've been directed to Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 and asked how this proves your (irrelevant) claim is true. 90% of the time you ignore it because it doesn't matter if it's true or because exempt it from truth ("I don't need to show it's true") or because you speculate that households never include those under the age of X. The rest of the time you prove your claim wrong but it doesn't matter.







EXACTLY! Your ENTIRE premise, your CONSTANT claim, the whole FOUNDATION of your apologetic rests on your pure speculation that everyone in those households was over the age of X. And you have NOTHING to show that's true (as you've admitted).

No one is saying, "We can baptize those over 6 feet tall because everyone baptized in Acts 16:15 was over 6 feet tall. That's your silly apologetic.

Those unconvinced of this weird dogma invented by that radical synergist in the late 16th Century is unconvincing because everyone baptized in Acts 16:15 was under the age of X (but we won't tell you what age that is). We're unconvinced of DOGMA invented out of thin air 1500 years after Jesus because Scripture nowhere teaches this (as you've proven) and because the command to baptize doesn't state any prohibition based on the age of X, and because NO ONE ON THE PLANET Earth saw the verse stating this for over 1500 years (and btw, nor can you).






.... nor those of Oriental or Negroid races. So do you demand, AS DOGMA, that it is forbidden in the Bible to baptize them and is heresy, prohibited, invalid, mockery to baptize them because there is no obvious EXAMPLE of them being baptized in Genesis - Revelation?

So do you demand, AS DOGMA, that it is forbidden in the Bible for one who is not 100% of the Hebrew/Jewish physical race to baptize because there are NO OBVIOUS EXAMPLES of any non-Hebrew administering baptism in Genesis - Revelati0n?

So do you - AS DOGMA - state it is forbidden to baptize in a tank back behind a curtain, that is heretical and forbidden and a mockery because there are no OBVIOUS EXAMPLES of that in Genesis - Revelation?

So do you DOGMATICALLY declare it's heresy and forbidden to ride a bicycle because there are NO OBVIOUS EXAMPLES of that done in Genesis - Revelation?

So Do you insist - AS DOGMA - that it is forbidden, heresy, mockery - to pass around in the pews including to women and kids trays with little plastic cups with squirts of Welch's Grape Juice and a bowl of little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread because NONE OF THAT is even once done like that in Genesis - Revelation?

Nope. You yourself reject your own apologetic. To use it is absurd at best or just plain hypocritical.

You WILL NOT show your claim is true.... and you yourself reject your own apologetic.


And remember, YOU are the one DEMANDING that WE ALL (including you) "scrap" all tradition (how persons, churches, denominations understand and interpret things) and go ONLY by what the words of the Bible state. But so far, you've been unwilling or unable to give even one Scripture and all you do is parrot - on and on and on, like a broken record - the verbatim tradition of your denomination. ALL you do is THE EXACT THING you forbid and repudiate.




.

My whole claim is based upon observable, factual scripture. It is you who rejects this very truth and demands it be based on denominationalism. You cannot think outside of denominationalism. I think in terms of "thus sayeth the Lord." If you cannot wrap your mind around that, it is your problem, not mine.

 

[Josiah]

My whole claim is based upon observable, factual scripture.

Cool. Then prove that "every baptism that happened as recorded in the Bible was of one who FIRST in our chronological time previously PROVED verbally, publicly and adequately that they had already chosen JEsus as their personal Savior. Start with Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33.

Then prove why it matters, that YOU YOURSELF accept and follow the mandate that we MUST do things exactly as we see it done everywhere it happens in Genesis - Revelation and CANNOT do anything that is not done exactly as exampled in Genesis - Revelation. Do YOU accept and do this? Start with you posting on the internet. Then in giving Baptism to one of the Negroid race. Then in celebrating Communion by passing around in the pews also to women and children trays of little plastic cups in which a bit of Welch's Grape Juice has been squirted and bowls of little cup up pieces of Weber's White Bread. Quote the verses where exactly that is done - in every case where baptism or communion is mentioned as having been done.

Show that your claim is true.... and why it matters dogmatically.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Cool. Then prove that "every baptism that happened as recorded in the Bible was of one who FIRST in our chronological time previously PROVED verbally, publicly and adequately that they had already chosen JEsus as their personal Savior. Start with Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33.

Then prove why it matters, that YOU YOURSELF accept and follow the mandate that we MUST do things exactly as we see it done everywhere it happens in Genesis - Revelation and CANNOT do anything that is not done exactly as exampled in Genesis - Revelation. Do YOU accept and do this? Start with you posting on the internet. Then in giving Baptism to one of the Negroid race. Then in celebrating Communion by passing around in the pews also to women and children trays of little plastic cups in which a bit of Welch's Grape Juice has been squirted and bowls of little cup up pieces of Weber's White Bread. Quote the verses where exactly that is done - in every case where baptism or communion is mentioned as having been done.

Show that your claim is true.... and why it matters dogmatically.




.

I shared every documented baptism in the book of Acts. There is never an unrepentant, faithless, person being baptized. There is never an infant being baptized.
If you cannot accept the evidence of scripture then there is no proof you will accept.
Clearly you value your church and its traditions over the factual information provided in the Bible. Go lean on your crutch.

 

[Josiah]

I shared every documented baptism in the book of Acts.

Nope. You evaded Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 for example. You did NOT even ATTEMPT to show that eveyone baptized in those households had surpassed their Xth birthday.

There is never an unrepentant, faithless, person being baptized. There is never an infant being baptized.

Prove it. Start with Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33.


Then show why we should accept the apologetic YOU YOURSELF reject. You don't hold that it is dogmatically mandated that we do everything exactly as was done in Genesis - Revelation, and you don't hold that it is a heresy and invalid to do things NOT exactly illustrated or exampled in the Bible, so it's silly at best (and perhaps just hypocritical) to found YOUR ENTIRE APOLOGETIC on a point you yourself reject, repudiate and almost never follow.

You will not show your claim is true (in fact you state, "I don't need to show it"), and you yourself don't accept or follow your own apologetic.



.

 

[MennoSota]

Nope. You evaded Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 for example. You did NOT even ATTEMPT to show that eveyone baptized in those households had surpassed their Xth birthday.





Prove it. Start with Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33.


Then show why we should accept the apologetic YOU YOURSELF reject. You don't hold that it is dogmatically mandated that we do everything exactly as was done in Genesis - Revelation, and you don't hold that it is a heresy and invalid to do things NOT exactly illustrated or exampled in the Bible, so it's silly at best (and perhaps just hypocritical) to found YOUR ENTIRE APOLOGETIC on a point you yourself reject, repudiate and almost never follow.

You will not show your claim is true (in fact you state, "I don't need to show it"), and you yourself don't accept or follow your own apologetic.



.

I have already addressed both passages in Acts 16. Neither reveal anything about an infant being baptized. It's factually not there.
You can spend eternity reading infants into the text, but it's not actually in the text. You cannot observe an infant being baptized in Lydia's household or in the family of the jailer. It is not there.
So, when you have an actual infant being baptized in the Bible, let me know.
Until then, the people who actually are discussed as being baptized all confess faith and upon confession are baptized.
Ignore the actual facts if you wish and cling to the unsubstantiated dogma of your denomination without question.

 

[Josiah]

I have already addressed both passages in Acts 16. Neither reveal anything about an infant being baptized. It's factually not there.

I never said any infants were in those households, YOUR dogmatic insistence is that "EVERY" and "ALL" of the people baptized in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 had already celebrated their "xth" birthday. You just refuse to confirmed your claim. You say "I have no need to show" it's true.

It's YOU claiming all baptisms were of those over the age of X (you won't tell us how old that is, however). And your whole point is THEREFORE, it is forbidden to baptize any under that age of X and we must dogmatically MANDATE they have first attained that age. You refuse to tell us WHY it so indicates.... and you prove you don't give a rip if what you do and don't do is exactly as is done in the Bible, but somehow... this claim you insist is true (but you refuse to show it's true) is DOGMA because folks are dogmatically MANDATED to do things exactly as they are always done in the Bible (but you don't) and we are dogmatically FORBIDDEN to do things in any other way than is always done in the Bible (but you do).

So... you have a foundational claim you won't show is true..... normed by a rule you reject as false and don't follow.



I don't dogmatically forbid any of the subgroups of humans below, for one reason: The Bible never states they are excluded, and for 2000 years, Christians have not done so:

+ Those with big feet (shoe sizes over the size of X - I won't tell you what size that is)
+ Those with long hair (I won't tell you how long)
+ Those with an IQ below X (I won't tell you what IQ that is)
+ Those with blonde hair or blue eyes
+ Those of Negroid or Oriental races
EVEN though I confess I don't know of even one example of such being baptized in the Bible. Do you?

You seem to want us to buy into something -DOGMATICALLY!! - that is just silly. That YOU can just IMPOSE some Dogmatic mandate or prohibition, and because it's not there, it's true. Like insisting, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" does not include Blacks because it doesn't say "And this includes African Americans." I admit, there isn't a verse that states, "And you MAY baptize fat people and those with blonde hair... or those under the age of X." I admit that. It also never says, "Thou canst NOT baptize skinny people and if you do that's heresy and a mockery to God."


When you stop posting on the internet, I'll accept that you actually believe we can't do things if that is not illustrated as done in the Bible and if there's not a verse that states, "Thou must post on the internet."



.

 

[MennoSota]

I never said any infants were in those households, YOUR dogmatic insistence is that "EVERY" and "ALL" of the people baptized in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 had already celebrated their "xth" birthday. You just refuse to confirmed your claim. You say "I have no need to show" it's true.

It's YOU claiming all baptisms were of those over the age of X (you won't tell us how old that is, however). And your whole point is THEREFORE, it is forbidden to baptize any under that age of X and we must dogmatically MANDATE they have first attained that age. You refuse to tell us WHY it so indicates.... and you prove you don't give a rip if what you do and don't do is exactly as is done in the Bible, but somehow... this claim you insist is true (but you refuse to show it's true) is DOGMA because folks are dogmatically MANDATED to do things exactly as they are always done in the Bible (but you don't) and we are dogmatically FORBIDDEN to do things in any other way than is always done in the Bible (but you do).

So... you have a foundational claim you won't show is true..... normed by a rule you reject as false and don't follow.



I don't dogmatically forbid any of the subgroups of humans below, for one reason: The Bible never states they are excluded, and for 2000 years, Christians have not done so:

+ Those with big feet (shoe sizes over the size of X - I won't tell you what size that is)
+ Those with long hair (I won't tell you how long)
+ Those with an IQ below X (I won't tell you what IQ that is)
+ Those with blonde hair or blue eyes
+ Those of Negroid or Oriental races
EVEN though I confess I don't know of even one example of such being baptized in the Bible. Do you?

You seem to want us to buy into something -DOGMATICALLY!! - that is just silly. That YOU can just IMPOSE some Dogmatic mandate or prohibition, and because it's not there, it's true. Like insisting, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" does not include Blacks because it doesn't say "And this includes African Americans." I admit, there isn't a verse that states, "And you MAY baptize fat people and those with blonde hair... or those under the age of X." I admit that. It also never says, "Thou canst NOT baptize skinny people and if you do that's heresy and a mockery to God."


When you stop posting on the internet, I'll accept that you actually believe we can't do things if that is not illustrated as done in the Bible and if there's not a verse that states, "Thou must post on the internet."



.

Great, we agree, the Bible provides no evidence of infants being baptized.
Thus, infant baptism is a practice that is outside of scripture and was started sometime after the Bible was written.

 

[Josiah]

Great, we agree, the Bible provides no evidence of infants being baptized.

... or being forbidden. Or that you give a rip as to whether things are done exactly as they are or aren't done it the Bible. We agree on those point.


BTW, there's no evidence of fat people baptized in the Bible, NOT ONE VERSE that even mentions fat people in this regard. So I'm sure you have a "NO FAT BAPTISM!" dogma and that your church never baptizes any over the weight of X.


Yes, forbidding children started in the late 16th Century. A radical synergist invented it; not because of any Scripture but because it conflicted with his radical synergism. We know that paedobaptism has existed since at least 140 AD at the very latest. So yes, your prohibition comes after the lack thereof.



.