Salvation - Part 2

[MennoSota]

You are certainly correct on this point. Nowhere in the New Testament is there an age requirement given for baptism, yet we are instructed that baptism is important for all people of all nations.

But are we inferring something? And is it wrong to infer such?

Our Anabaptist friend infers all over the place as, for example, when he infers that the household in question was absent minor children (for which there is no evidence or logic at all). And what is the reply to that criticism? Well, at that point, the idea is floated that the household referred to in scripture was made up of servants, visiting relatives, the homeowner's adult son who lived in the basement while looking for work, etc. -- anything but the most likely people, the minor children! And remember also that, for the verse to be correct, every last one of these consenting adults would have to have gone along with the decision made by the head of household, whereas there would be no such issue when it came to baptizing any minor children.
.

I am not inferring anything. I am saying the Bible is completely silent regarding infants being baptized. Use evidence to prove me wrong.

 

[Arsenios]

I am not inferring anything. I am saying the Bible is completely silent regarding infants being baptized. Use evidence to prove me wrong.

Households include the children OF the Households...

!!! NEXT !!!




Arsenios

 

[MoreCoffee]

Households include the children OF the Households...

!!! NEXT !!!




Arsenios

Truly!

I admire your optimism.

:smirk:

 

[Arsenios]

I am stating outright that the Bible is completely silent regarding whether infants were baptized.

Households include infants in the households...

If you say no, you must show it in Scripture...

By your very own standards...

The fact that you did not know Christ until becoming older
does not make the Bible silent on infant Baptism...

I mean, I am in your camp...
I did not know Him till I was 37 years old...
But His disciples Baptized infants...
And you were not one of them...

Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

I am not inferring anything. I am saying the Bible is completely silent regarding infants being baptized.

... as it is about posting on the internet. But where is your DOGMA "Anti-Internet"
... as it is about Gentiles administering baptism. But where is your DOGMA "Anti-Gentilebaptism"
... as it is about women receiving communion. But where is your DOGMA "Anti-Women communion"
... as it is about youth pastors and youth groups. But where is your DOGMA "Anti-Youth"
... as it is about passing around Communion with little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread" but where is your DOGMA "Anti-White Bread"
... as it is about loving blonde, blue-eyed Germans. But where is your DOGMA "Anti-Blonde"

Get the idea? Dawning on you?

You CLAIM you are against forming Dogmas from "silence" - where Scripture does not clearly state it. Okay. What you won't admit is that those wackedoodle German radical synergists invented (out of thin air) two new Baptism dogmas - Anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism which for many months you have been perfectly parroting, giving the verbatim spin of Anabaptist tradition, no matter how silly (and no matter that you yourself show YOU don't accept the arguments!). But when any asks, "Where does Scripture state that?" We get diversions and dodges by the zillions. NOW you seem to be willing to admit - Scripture is SILENT about these two dogmas invented by those synergistic Anabaptists - Anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism - the dogmas you've been defending, the defining dogmas of the Baptists.


Because you are clearly opposed to Dogmas formed out of silence, because you insist the words of Scripture must teach it....
You have been asked to present Scripture that states those under the age of X are prohibited to be baptized but, well, we all know...
You have been asked to present Scripture that states those who have not yet made a testimony of faith are prohibited to be baptized, but, well, we all know...
You have been asked to document your claim that "EVERY baptism is of those who FIRST believed" but there are those Scriptures you just dodge...
You have been asked to document your claim that "EVERY baptism was of those over the age of X" but there are those Scriptures you just dodge...
You have been asked about your whole premise that we can't do things that aren't recorded as done in the NT but all you do is post diversions on the internet (which is never recorded as done in the NT).


I hope things are beginning to dawn on you, my friend. I think you have been parroting traditions you've not bothered to think about (especially as a MONERGIST!).... and I think maybe you've been trying to point one finger at others not realizing you are pointing 3 back at yourself. The Anabaptists were pretty wacky, my friend, and were radical synergists. You need to THINK before parroting their tradition. I think you've (occasionally) raised some valid points - but haven't applied them to yourself and your position.



.

 

[Albion]

I am not inferring anything.

I gave you a few examples of you doing just that. More could have been provided if necessary to establish the point.

 

[Albion]

Households include infants in the households...

If you say no, you must show it in Scripture...

By your very own standards...

Arsenios

Exactly. But don't hold your breath thinking it will happen. :sly:

 

[MennoSota]

Households include the children OF the Households...

!!! NEXT !!!




Arsenios

Where do we read that children were baptized in those passages? You are forcing your prejudice upon the verse. When you find the verse where infants are shown being baptized, let me know.
Until then, the Bible is utterly silent on the matter.

 

[Lamb]

Where do we read that children were baptized in those passages? You are forcing your prejudice upon the verse. When you find the verse where infants are shown being baptized, let me know.
Until then, the Bible is utterly silent on the matter.

Where does the bible forbid infants to be baptized specifically? Name the verse.

 

[MennoSota]

Where does the bible forbid infants to be baptized specifically? Name the verse.

It never forbids the redeemed from being baptized.
Is there even one instance of a redeemed baby being baptized in the Bible?
David says he was born in sin.
Do you baptize unregenerate person's without their consent? If so, why not baptize all humanity without their consent?
Bottom line, there is zero evidence of infants being baptized in the Bible. At best you must infer and speculate on the matter.
It is a dangerous thing to create a means of salvation from a speculation.

 

[Lamb]

It never forbids the redeemed from being baptized.
Is there even one instance of a redeemed baby being baptized in the Bible?
David says he was born in sin.
Do you baptize unregenerate person's without their consent? If so, why not baptize all humanity without their consent?
Bottom line, there is zero evidence of infants being baptized in the Bible. At best you must infer and speculate on the matter.
It is a dangerous thing to create a means of salvation from a speculation.

So you do admit there is no verse that forbids infants to be baptized. Is there a verse that forbids the unregenerate to be baptized? It is up to you to provide one.

 

[MennoSota]

So you do admit there is no verse that forbids infants to be baptized. Is there a verse that forbids the unregenerate to be baptized? It is up to you to provide one.

There is no verse that forbids riding a horse off a cliff either.
Do you make up a doctrine of salvation by riding a horse off a cliff?
Is the function of baptism actually salvation of a soul?
If you are baptizing an infant as a dedication service, to covenant as family and church to raise the child in the teachings of scripture, I think it's no different than John the Baptist's baptism. There is no imagination that one is being saved by the ceremony.
If you are baptizing an infant as their means of salvation, you have immediately created a false doctrine that giving the family and child a false hope of redemption that is never presented, ever, in scripture.
If you baptize unregenerate infants against their will or knowledge, why not baptize all unregenerate person's against their will or knowledge and thus save the entire planet? (Such a task seems silly to you, yet you seem unfazed when it's an infant. Why is that?)

 

[Josiah]

So you do admit there is no verse that forbids infants to be baptized. Is there a verse that forbids the unregenerate to be baptized? It is up to you to provide one.

Actually, he HAS dogmatically insisted that in the Bible, baptism is ALWAYS AFTER the receiver celebrated their Xth birthday and chose Jesus as their Savior. So he must ignore the Scriptures presented to him.


His apologetic is ....
1) We can only do what is clearly illustrated as done in the Bible (thus his constant, "where in the Bible.....") and
2) EVERY Baptism in the Bible is of those who FIRST attained some (never disclosed) magical age AND chose Jesus.
Problem is: The premise (#1) is silly and he himself rejects it and the position (#2) is false, he admits its an argument from silence and he repudiates all arguments from silence.


There's another problem for our Calvinist friend: These two new invented Baptism dogmas were created out of thin air in the 16th Century by radical synergists..... in order to "fit" with their radical synergism. The whole point is that some CANNOT do their part in the salvation of themselves and thus God cannot save them. THAT'S the rationale. They had no Scriptures.... they didn't even claim to have any Scriptures.... they simply started with their radical synergism and then imposed, imputed that to Baptism. But our friend is a monergist and therefore has no defense for this new Anabaptist denomination tradition he parrots... just a silly rubric he himself rejects and a position from silence he can't support. It's OBVIOUS.



- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

There is no verse that forbids riding a horse off a cliff either.

I don't believe that there are also numerous verses which recommend riding off a cliff, though, so that is where your analogy fails. The universal importance of Baptism is well-documented in the word of God.

 

[Josiah]

I don't believe that there are also numerous verses which recommend riding off a cliff, though, so that is where your analogy fails. The universal importance of Baptism is well-documented in the word of God.

BINGO


And of course, there is no new Dogma about falling off a horse....

I think our Calvinist friend agrees that abortion is wrong, it's murder. But there is NO verse in the Bible that says "Thou canst NOT kill a person not yet born" (the kind of verse our friend DEMANDS of all positions - except Anabaptist ones). There IS a verse "Thou shall not kill" (and the Hebrew word means to murder an innocent human). Well... we have verses telling us to teach and baptize.... and yup we even have examples of such in the Bible, and we have record of baptisms of babies from 63 AD on. If our Calvinist friend insists on the rubric "one is EXCLUDED unless the Bible clearly, specially INCLUDES them in word and example" then he must allow abortion... he must allow the killing of African American slaves. He must exclude women from communion and American Natives from Baptism. No, I think it's obvious the rubric is the other way around: Commands are inclusive unless the Bible indicates otherwise - and as our Calvinist friend has finally (sic) admitted, his position is from silence. The Anabaptist imputes it via assumptions (so as to "fit" their radical synergism).

Truth is: there is nothing - not in the words of Scripture, not in 1500 years of Christian belief and practice - nothing - to support the two new Baptism inventions of those wackedoodle radical synergist Anabaptists in the 16th Century: Anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism. And they didn't even CLAIM there was! The new dogmas were invented to "fit" their radical synergism (which our Calvinist friend rejects, pulling the whole rationale out from under him, leaving him with two things he himself rejects: We can't do anything not clearly illustrated in the Bible and every case of baptism is of those who FIRST celebrated their Xth birthday and freely chose Jesus as their personal savior.

 

[MennoSota]

I don't believe that there are also numerous verses which recommend riding off a cliff, though, so that is where your analogy fails. The universal importance of Baptism is well-documented in the word of God.

No one is questioning the obedience of baptism. You, and others, are avoiding the issue of teaching infant baptism as a means of saving grace. Such a teaching is not found, regarding baptizing the ignorant and unknowing infant and then declaring the infant to be saved.
In fact, it is cultish. It teaches that a magical ceremony made a person a Christian without their knowledge. It tells them they are a part of a church denomination by means of a ceremony. Cults do the same thing.
As Christians, we do not...ever...baptize unwilling or ignorant adults. They request baptism and express their saving faith. Yet, with infants you ignore them as independent beings and then force baptism upon them. More so, you tell them a bold-faced lie that their baptism saves them from eternal damnation. You are therefore culpable for pointing a person toward hell and giving them an illusion of salvation. That should haunt your conscience.

 

[Arsenios]

[The Bible] never forbids the redeemed from being baptized.

Agreed!

Is there even one instance of a redeemed baby being baptized in the Bible?

Yes - Every time a Household is Baptized into Christ...

That includes the slaves, servants, children and adults within that Household...

David says he was born in sin.

Well, not exactly - He wrote:
"For in sins did my mother bear me..."

And by this, he affirms the impact of the deeds of the mother on an unborn child...

What you actually mean, (I am assuming),
Is that he was born fallen in Adam...
So also now, after Adam, is all mankind, including Christ...
By being born into our fallen flesh and fallen human nature,
And thus by becoming man while remaining God,
He healed all that is wrong within the human nature we all have...
But only within Himself...
Which is why we are Baptized INTO Christ BY Christ...
The healing of man is only found WITHIN Christ's Body...
INTO Which we are Baptized BY that very Body...
Whose HEAD Christ IS...

Do you baptize unregenerate person's without their consent?

Not adults, but YOU DO...

Because you have the Holy Spirit Baptizing the unregenerate against their will...

If so, why not baptize all humanity without their consent?

That is yours to answer, not mine...

Because you are the one advocating involuntary Baptism by the Holy Spirit...

Bottom line, there is zero evidence of infants being baptized in the Bible.

So you deny that the Holy Spirit Baptizes children?

We AGREE!!!

Christ Baptizes them!

At best you must infer and speculate on the matter.

At best you are doing exactly that...

It is a dangerous thing to create a means of salvation from a speculation.

So should I TAKE YOUR advice, because YOU are NOT USING it???



Menno, you are the best!

Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

Agreed!



Yes - Every time a Household is Baptized into Christ...

That includes the slaves, servants, children and adults within that Household...



Well, not exactly - He wrote:
"For in sins did my mother bear me..."

And by this, he affirms the impact of the deeds of the mother on an unborn child...

What you actually mean, (I am assuming),
Is that he was born fallen in Adam...
So also now, after Adam, is all mankind, including Christ...
By being born into our fallen flesh and fallen human nature,
And thus by becoming man while remaining God,
He healed all that is wrong within the human nature we all have...
But only within Himself...
Which is why we are Baptized INTO Christ BY Christ...
The healing of man is only found WITHIN Christ's Body...
INTO Which we are Baptized BY that very Body...
Whose HEAD Christ IS...



Not adults, but YOU DO...

Because you have the Holy Spirit Baptizing the unregenerate against their will...



That is yours to answer, not mine...

Because you are the one advocating involuntary Baptism by the Holy Spirit...



So you deny that the Holy Spirit Baptizes children?

We AGREE!!!

Christ Baptizes them!



At best you are doing exactly that...



So should I TAKE YOUR advice, because YOU are NOT USING it???



Menno, you are the best!

Arsenios

Perhaps the dumbest post you have written to date, Arsenios.

 

[Josiah]

No one is questioning the obedience of baptism.

You are placing new dogmatic prohibitions on it that are never found in Scripture or 1500 years of Christianity: Anti-Paedobaptism ("Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday") and Credobaptism ("Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless and until they hath given public, adequate proof of having chosen Jesus as their personal savior").

It teaches that a magical ceremony made a person a Christian

You are making that up, in direct conflict and contradiction to what every non-Baptist has said here. NO ONE ON THE PLANET EARTH has ever believed that any ceremony saves as such. You are simply trying to insist that if any means or human effort is involved, God is rendered impotent (so small is God).

made a person a Christian without their knowledge.

You constantly parrot the apologetics of the radical synergists on this without even realizing how you repudiate the very thing you are saying.... Friend, I reject the synergism of your position (as do you), we are NOT saved by self attaining a certain age and IQ, by self knowing enough information. Jesus is the Savior. Faith is the free gift of God. Friend, you CANNOT be a monergist (as you claim) AND use a synergistic argument as your apologetic. Think about that.

Read the Scriptures. NO ONE can even say Jesus is Lord unless the HOLY SPIRIT gives them the free gift of faith. NO ONE. Not a 85 year old with an IQ of 305 and 6 Ph.D.'s who has memorized every word of the Bible. NO ONE! CAN! God saves!

you tell them a bold-faced lie that their baptism saves them from eternal damnation.

Well, YOU are telling them that their age, IQ, knowledge and requests saves them.... That should haunt your conscience (and your Calvinism).

We're telling them that JESUS is THE Savior..... He does it..... ALL of it..... to all whom He chooses..... regardless of any quality they provide..... I reject your synergism....



Now, back to your insistence that "all the baptisms in the Bible were to those ALREADY SAVED and over the age of X." Back to your insistence that we can't do anything (like post on the internet) unless it is clearly illustrated as being done in the Bible. Back to your insistence that God cannot save anyone unless the have celebrated their Xth birthday and have a certain IQ and can pass a test of having certain knowledge (without that from US, God is impotent). You have been promoting Anti-Paedobaptism, Credobaptism and synergism - and a silly rubric about what we cannot do. Where is the support for this? You say you reject reject all denominational tradition (but all you do is parrot Anabaptism tradition - verbatim) and reject positions from silence (although you make them all the time) and will only accept what the Bible's words state. Okay.... let's see you do that for the 3 dogmas you keep parroting: Anti-Paedobaptism, Credobaptism and synergism.... and your rubric about how we can't do anything unless it is specifically recorded as having been done in the Bible.





.

 

[Arsenios]

Teaching infant baptism as a means of saving grace...
Baptizing the ignorant and unknowing infant and then declaring the infant to be saved.
Teaches that a magical ceremony made a person a Christian without their knowledge.

It demonstrates the Mystery of Baptism as discipled by Christ to his Apostles...

As Christians, we do not...ever...baptize unwilling or ignorant adults.

Slavery is now abolished, Glory to God...

They request baptism and express their saving faith.

Indeed they do - THEY express THEIR faith, and are then Baptized INTO Christ...
And in this, they ARE ENTERED INTO the Faith of Christ,
Into the very Body of our Lord and Savior...

Yet, with infants you ignore them as independent beings and then force baptism upon them.

Suffer the little children unto Me...
For...
Of such as these...
Is the Kingdom of the Heavens...

More so, you tell them a bold-faced lie that their baptism saves them from eternal damnation.

No we do not...

As they grow into adulthood, we teach them that whereas they have been entered into Christ as an infant, their Salvation depends on their life-long relationship with God in obedience to Him at any cost...

You are therefore culpable for pointing a person toward hell and giving them an illusion of salvation. That should haunt your conscience.

Read my reply, and tell me that their obedience to God unto death is pointing them to Hell...

That should haunt YOUR conscience?

It's those three fingers, my brother...

Whenever you point that finger of accusation against another...

You will find yourself doing...

That which you accuse against others...

I sure do when I accuse others...

In fact, whenever I find myself accusing another
Even silently in the privacy of my own mind...
As soon as I catch it,
I give thanks to God...
And look for and find it in my own heart...
The very thing I accused another...

Every time, Menno...

Not even 99 out of 100...


Arsenios