If paedobaptism were taught...

[MennoSota]

... 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.



.

Why would you purposely baptize a person who is dead in their trespasses and sins and has no intention of repenting?
I don't even care if there is no restriction. I want to know why you would advocate for doing such a thing. Even more so, why do you stop the practice at a certain age of X? Please enlighten us.

 

[Josiah]

I don't even care if there is no restriction in the Bible.

Then why invent a DOGMA that one subset of humanity is RESTRICTED?

Or is your whole point that you don't give a rip what the Bible says and doesen't say..... YOU can just invent RESTRICTIONS... as DOGMA...and God and everyone has to obey YOU?



.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Then why invent a DOGMA that one subset of humanity is RESTRICTED?

Or is your whole point that you don't give a rip what the Bible says and doesen't say..... YOU can just invent RESTRICTIONS... as DOGMA...and God and everyone has to obey YOU?



.




.

Every person who does not confess faith is restricted from baptism. The same is true regarding receiving the Lord's Supper.
Do you encourage the unsaved to take communion as you do with with baptism?

 

[Josiah]

I don't even care if there is no restriction in the Bible.

Every person who does not confess faith is restricted from baptism.

So, YOU can just invent a restriction - and God and everyone else is mandated to agree with YOU.


It's all coming into focus....

 

[MennoSota]

.

 

[Josiah]

Anti-Padeobaptism is a defining Dogma invented by the radically synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, overturning and condemning 1500 years of practice and belief; it is entirely about a PROHIBITION on baptism to those under the never disclosed age of X, it is entirely about age and age RESTRICTION.

I don't even care if there is no restriction in the Bible.

Every person who does not confess faith is restricted from baptism.

So, YOU can just invent a restriction - and God and everyone else is mandated to agree with YOU.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Anti-Padeobaptism is a defining Dogma invented by the radically synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, overturning and condemning 1500 years of practice and belief; it is entirely about a PROHIBITION on baptism to those under the never disclosed age of X, it is entirely about age and age RESTRICTION.








So, YOU can just invent a restriction - and God and everyone else is mandated to agree with YOU.




.

No it's not.
You claim it's about restriction.
It's not. It's about doing what the Apostles did rather than creating an imaginary teaching and doing that.
When someone can show me an infant being baptized in scripture, I will heartily endorse the practice. Since it cannot be found and must be inferred through the word "household" I take it that the Apostles never practiced such a tradition nor taught anyone to do so.

 

[Josiah]

You claim it's about restriction.

You've chosen to reverse our positions.

Your dogma is "Those under the not-disclosed age of X (all "paedo") are prohibited from receiving baptism. Anti-Paedobaptism is the DOGMATIC prohibition of all "paedo" (a very generic term for a minor - can mean any under 20 but usually under 13).

I don't have any Baptism Dogma that PROHIBITS anyone from Baptism. Not tall people or fat people. Not blonde-haired or red-headed people. Not dark-skinned or light-skinned people. Not big feet or small feet people. Not stupid people or intelligent people. No prohibiting dogma.



ANTI-Paedobaptism is entirely about a dogmatic PROHIBITION. Exactly as the other two baptism dogmas invented by those radical synergistds: Immersion Only Baptism and Credobaptism. Of course, you posted that you don't care if these prohibitions are found in the Bible because you claim they exists anyhow.

I take it that the Apostles never practiced such a tradition

So, anything you can't prove the Apostles always did is dogmatically forbidden. Thus, your posting on the Internet is dogmatically forbidden. And perhaps 90% of what you churches does is dogmatically forbidden. Do you see how SILLY your rubric is? Everyone else does.




.

 

[MennoSota]

You've chosen to reverse our positions.

Your dogma is "Those under the not-disclosed age of X (all "paedo") are prohibited from receiving baptism. Anti-Paedobaptism is the DOGMATIC prohibition of all "paedo" (a very generic term for a minor - can mean any under 20 but usually under 13).

I don't have any Baptism Dogma that PROHIBITS anyone from Baptism. Not tall people or fat people. Not blonde-haired or red-headed people. Not dark-skinned or light-skinned people. Not big feet or small feet people. Not stupid people or intelligent people. No prohibiting dogma.



ANTI-Paedobaptism is entirely about a dogmatic PROHIBITION. Exactly as the other two baptism dogmas invented by those radical synergistds: Immersion Only Baptism and Credobaptism. Of course, you posted that you don't care if these prohibitions are found in the Bible because you claim they exists anyhow.






So, anything you can't prove the Apostles always did is dogmatically forbidden. Thus, your posting on the Internet is dogmatically forbidden. And perhaps 90% of what you churches does is dogmatically forbidden. Do you see how SILLY your rubric is? Everyone else does.




.

No reversal. My position has always been the same. You just refuse to accept it and then merely turn it around to avoid the fact that there is no recorded baptism of an infant anywhere in scripture.
The tradition started after the Apostles died and morphed into a heresy that teaches the gift of faith and the Holy Spirit via infant baptism.

 

[FredVB]

Anti-Padeobaptism is a defining Dogma invented by the radically synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, overturning and condemning 1500 years of practice and belief; it is entirely about a PROHIBITION on baptism to those under the never disclosed age of X, it is entirely about age and age RESTRICTION.

So, YOU can just invent a restriction - and God and everyone else is mandated to agree with YOU.

Why is there baptism, what is it for? If babies are not shown being baptized in the Bible, who are the ones being baptized? I see those who repent, those who come to faith, those who come to Christ. Jesus Christ said to go make disciples from all the nations, "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you" and to baptize them. So this certainly means those who do become disciples and learn to do what Jesus says. Babies are not such who do this. They can as they grow older.

I was not advocating that the Bible always explicitly stated that people repented before baptism (I believe that they did, but would not make a volatile claim like the Bible always says so). I was advocating that the forgiveness of sins (as in ‘be baptized for the forgiveness of sin’) without repentance is never advocated in scripture. To word it another way, the Bible does not claim that you don’t need to be sorry for your sins to get God to forgive them ... that would be a version of “say a Sinners Prayer and go back to sinning and God will still forgive you.” That is anathema to the message of both the Church and the Bible.

And yet in our world many Christian believers live like that is the case.

With respect to Acts 22:8 ... Why did Paul call Jesus ‘LORD’ if he had not had a change of heart (that is what repentance is, is it not?)
With respect to Acts 22:10 ... Why was Paul prepared to do whatever Jesus said to do if he had not had a change of heart?

Paul certainly showed the change of heart that there is with repentance. The Bible is showing this. 'LORD' is the writing used in places where 'Yahweh' is meant.

 

[atpollard]

So, YOU can just invent a restriction -

Technically, Peter invented it in Acts 2 when he instructed them to REPENT and BE BAPTIZED.
(I made the word joining Repent with Baptism as small as I could because I know that is a big deal to you ... but they are still linked together.)

 

[MennoSota]

Technically, Peter invented it in Acts 2 when he instructed them to REPENT and BE BAPTIZED.
(I made the word joining Repent with Baptism as small as I could because I know that is a big deal to you ... but they are still linked together.)

https://youtu.be/4AyjKgz9tKg

 

[Josiah]

Technically, Peter invented it in Acts 2 when he instructed them to REPENT and BE BAPTIZED.
(I made the word joining Repent with Baptism as small as I could because I know that is a big deal to you ... but they are still linked together.)

Of course, your ENTIRE POSITION rests on the word you made small.....

Your ENTIRE POSITION rests on a universal mandate that the koine Greek word "KAI" ("and") dogmatically imposes chronological sequence; that it's meaning is not "and" but rather "after that." Of course, not one Greek speaking person would agree with you. Not not Greek dictionary or grammar would agree with you.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Of course, your ENTIRE POSITION rests on the word you made small.....

Your ENTIRE POSITION rests on a universal mandate that the koine Greek word "KAI" ("and") dogmatically imposes chronological sequence; that it's meaning is not "and" but rather "after that." Of course, not one Greek speaking person would agree with you. Not not Greek dictionary or grammar would agree with you.




.

When I say, "Josiah was saved and went to heaven" is that chronological or did you actually go to heaven before being saved?
Do you think it doesn't matter?

 

[Josiah]

Do you think it doesn't matter?

The Anabaptist view depends entirely on the koine Greek word "kai" meaning and dogmatically mandating chronological sequence. Problem is: It doesn't. Not a single Greek speaking person holds the Anabaptist view on the word - and NEVER HAS. Not a single Greek dictionary defines the word that way - AND NEVER HAS. The whole Anabaptist apologetic is founded on a lie, a mistake. And NOT ONE PERSON ON THE PLANET held to that before some Anabaptist wackedoddle (who didn't speak Greek) invented that silly dogma in the late 16th Century, and few do today.



.

 

[Josiah]

Jesus told the disciples to go and baptize ALL nations. It's not just about having babies included in households but by Jesus' authority, babies are to be baptized because they too are a part of all nations.

Acts 2:39 says the promise is for you and your children. That's not a feeling.

Ahha.


Where is the verse, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday and is prohibited before Noon on that day (but you won't be told which birthday that is)." Nope. I''ll agree the Bible never says, "Thou shalt baptize babies" but then it also doesn't say "Thou shalt baptize Baptists" Or Amerians. Or blonde-haired people. Or Asians. Or fat people. Or short people. Or those with a shoe size under 8. Or native Australians. It says, "This promise is for you and your children." And remember, similarly, the Bible says to love all. It doesn't specifically state, "and this includes African-Amercians" but we accept it means them too because there is no verse that excludes/prohibits them; silly to invent a dogma 1500 years after the Bible was given to us that insists, "BUT we are forbidden to love African -Americans because the Bible never specifically states the command includes them."




.

 

[MennoSota]

The Anabaptist view depends entirely on the koine Greek word "kai" meaning and dogmatically mandating chronological sequence. Problem is: It doesn't. Not a single Greek speaking person holds the Anabaptist view on the word - and NEVER HAS. Not a single Greek dictionary defines the word that way - AND NEVER HAS. The whole Anabaptist apologetic is founded on a lie, a mistake. And NOT ONE PERSON ON THE PLANET held to that before some Anabaptist wackedoddle (who didn't speak Greek) invented that silly dogma in the late 16th Century, and few do today.



.

And yet every instance in the Bible follows that same chronological pattern. Funny how that works.
You literally have to ignore the experience of the entire Bible to hold your opinion.

 

[FredVB]

Of course, your ENTIRE POSITION rests on the word you made small.....**

Your ENTIRE POSITION rests on a universal mandate that the koine Greek word "KAI" ("and") dogmatically imposes chronological sequence; that it's meaning is not "and" but rather "after that."** Of course, not one Greek speaking person would agree with you. Not not Greek dictionary or grammar would agree with you.

Yet repent and be baptized do need to come together. Baptism without repentance already is an empty gesture. It isn't known that repentance will come later. In fact, that is the thing with repentance, it is never known if repentance will come later. Some who get baptized live thereafter without repentance ever showing.

To be baptized is a requirement of believers, it should be water baptism when that is possible. Delaying it makes no sense when it is understood that baptism should be the expression as a believer. My own case was unusual, so it wasn't understood and church leaders did not help with that. The thief who repented as he hung on a cross next to Christ had no chance for a water baptism, yet he and every believer have a baptism in the Spirit that water baptism is to represent in our physical reality.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...C0bXsEllEpCgRCHC9u3PelLgeAfsBYpks1-LR2_bbdIdI

 

[Josiah]

Yet repent and be baptized do need to come together

... a valid opinion. One COULD argue that baptism isn't effectual until there is repentance but I think that weak (and obviously another issue for another thread).


The word "kai" CONNECTS things. That's it. That's all. The entire apologetic of the Anabaptists (The word "kai" dogmatically mandates sequence) is simply .... well.... not true. The whole apogetic is an obvious falsehood. There are words that mean (or at least imply) chronological sequence, but not one of them is EVER found in a verse where the word "baptism" also appears.


And the other apologetic (EVERY baptism in the Bible is of one who FIRST repented, chose Jesus as their personal Savior and personally requested Baptism ERGO it is dogma we must do the same) is also .... well..... not true (we have baptisms that do NOT show those before baptism) and irrelevant since the very same Anabaptists INSIST that we are NOT limited to only doing what is exampled in the Bible.


True, there is no verse that says, "... and this includes those under the magical but never disclosed as of X" but then there also is no verse that says, "
.... but those under the magical but never disclosed age of X are prohibited from receiving this." There are MANY commands in Scripture that we universally apply because the Bible never states, "But NOT these." "Do not murder" doesn't say "Oh, this includes females" but since there is no verse that says "this applies ONLY to males" we include them. Going through the Bible and arbitrarily slapping restrictions based on age, race, color, height, weight, hair-color, etc. seems .... well..... not wise.


IF (big word there!) IF one joined with a tiny number of very modern Protestants to say, "We permit babies to be baptized but we don't know if this actually DOES anything" is an easier position to defend than "The Bible says we are dogmtically forbidden to baptize anyone who has not yet celebrated their "Xth" birthday, although we have no clue what birthday that is" (the Anti-Paedobaptism dogma of Baptists).




.

 

[MennoSota]

Is there ever one instance in scripture where a person is baptized and then repents?