Salvation - Part 2

[Arsenios]

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

Because I wrote: "Menno, you are the best!"???

I disagree!

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

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

Hard to answer, isn't it...

I would dislike arguing against me too...

I am dumb and dumber than the dumbest post ever posted...


Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

Baptism, in the Bible, is never given to an unsuspecting person, apart from their awareness of what is happening.

Prove that from 1 Corinthians 1:16 and Acts 16:15.

Where does the Bible state that we cannot do anything (like post on the internet) unless there is an obviously example of such being done in the Bible?

Baptism in the Bible is ALWAYS to those over the age of X who first were believers

Prove that from 1 Corinthians 1:16 and Acts 16:15.

Where does the Bible state that we cannot do anything (like post on the internet) unless there is an obviously example of such being done in the Bible?

You keep (perfectly) parroting Anabaptist tradition of their inventions of Anti-Paedobaptism, Credobaptism and their embrace of radical synergism and their silly rubric - but never, ever, substantiating it. In fact, you usually go on to repudiate your own points.

What I NEVER have observed is an infant being baptized. I do not read about it or observe it anywhere.

Substantiate for me that we cannot do anything that you have not read as done in the NT (like posting on the internet)? Several have repeatedly pointed out the ABSURDITY of this rubric you are echoing but clearly, undeniably, reject yourself. IF you refused to give communion to women..... refused to use electricity in church.... refused to allow Gentiles to administer Baptism.... refused to have baptism tanks.... refused to pass around Communion in little cut up pieces of white bread and little plastic cups of Welche's grape juice... refused to love blonde haired people..... allowed abortion.... maybe I'd say at least you yourself believe your own point. But you don't. So why must we?

Friend, it's spoken of since 63 AD - within the time frame of the Apostles. What is NOT found in the Bible or for FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS is the new inventions you keep parroting: Anti-Paedobaptism, Credobaptism and the rubric that we can't do anything unless it is documented as having been done in the Bible and if some group of humans is NOT specifically mentioned as INCLUDED, they are dogmatically EXCLUDED. Friend, those Anabaptists were pretty wacky and their ideas very new. You are the one parroting brand new, made up inventions created out of the blue by radical synergists. And you show, you not only have NOTHING to support those positions, it seems you don't even agree with the very apologetics you are parroting from them.

. I especially repudiate all inference and/or statement that directly states that an infant has received redemptive salvation by means of water baptism.

again, yet again, one more time, how often must this be posted over how many months and in how many threads until you read it? NO ONE ON THE PLANET EARTH believes or has ever believed that any CEREMONY or means or human whatever is the Savior. It is YOU who are echoing some of the synergism of the Anabaptist (God MUST have our help - a certain age, minimun IQ, the knowledge of x,y,z, permission, etc), it's YOU suggesting that Jesus is not THE Savior, not our side. We simply reject your premise that if some human activity is involved, God is rendered impotent to save. My God is bigger than that.


See posts 118, 125, 135




.

 

[Josiah]

An open letter to [MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]...


Friend,


1. First READ posts 118, 125, 135, 143. Read those BEFORE you continue.


2. You (perhaps accidentally) have raised an obvious and solid point: MUCH of Christian theology is derived from Scripture but not specifically stated (The Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, etc.). ALL theological positions and traditions acknowledge that (including Lutherans and Calvinists who embrace Sola Scriptura). Your premise that the words of the Bible must exactly STATE such is actually not in keeping with Sola Scriptura or 2000 years of Christianity and (obviously) you yourself don't insist upon that for yourself (as you've made so obvious). But your point is valid: Traditionally, Christians HAVE embraced (even dogmatically) positions not exactly so stated in the Bible. The problem I see is your double-standard - you can "derive" but others can't, and you permit yourself to embrace tradition (you perfectly echo Anabaptist tradition) but reject ecumenical, historic, orthodox tradition: YOU think very highly of what YOU now think/feel/observe but deny others looking to what ALL Christians, together, for 1500 years, going back to the Apostles, did/do.


3. I've NEVER understood how one an be a Reformed Baptist, lol. It's like saying a Dog-Cat. They are about as directly opposite of each other as is possible. Anyway..... IF (big word there)..... IF your position were: "I think there is insufficient support for the idea that Baptism is a means of grace" AND STOPPED THERE.... you'd be in the company of some of the later-day Calvinists (Calvin himself rejected that, he affirmed Baptism as a means of grace) but of course, Calvinism was completely reinvented after Calvin and that included a non-dogmatic (sic) questioning (even at times denial) of Baptism as a means of grace. BUT (and here's the point) they passionately rejected the dogmas YOU are so obsessed with: Anti-Paedobaptism, Credobaptism... and your equal obsession with the rubric that we can't do anything unless it's illustrated in the Bible, if a group is not INCLUDED they are thus dogmatically EXCLUDED, and that baptism is invalid unless every body part is covered by an abundance of water. In other words, they rejected Anabaptism. They also rejected the synergism of the Anabaptist - the whole point that God CANNOT save a baby. Those Calvinist repudiated all the Anabaptist traditions you have so perfectly, verbatim been echoing for as long as I've known you - these later day Calvinists REJECTED and REPUDIATED every one of those inventions/traditions - the ones you are defending and parroting. ALL they did was suggest (nothing dogmatic!!!!!) that Baptism AS A MEANS OF GRACE has insufficient support. I disagree with them.... but IMO it's not an unreasonable position (and they are careful to NOT say it dogmatically). They SUPPORT infant baptism (and by sprikling/pouring).... they REJECT the synergism you have been promoting.... they REJECT the silly rubrics you've been promoting (but never following).... they just won't say that God can or does use baptism as a tool to grant His free gift of faith (which is NEVER requested, NEVER sought, NEVER remotely understood until AFTER it is given). I don't agree with this reinvention of Calvins' view (Calvin himself was pretty orthodox on this) BUT I get the point: Yeah, whether we are discussing the Trinity or the Two Natures of Christ or ANY historic, orthodox, ecumenical belief - there CAN be (and probably will be) some who say "I think there is insufficient support to hold that dogmatically." Luther did that with the views of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. BUT that's NOT your position. You are not a new-Calvinist on this, you are perfectly, verbatim, echoing the traditions of those wacky German Anabaptists that those very same Calvinists repudiated as much as Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics and others did. IF you held to the new Calvinist position - I could respectfully disagree. But your wacky Anabaptist stuff seems WAY beneigh you and just contradicts all the monergism and sound theology you will proclaim when you get off this Anabaptist wackedoodle stuff.


- Josiah



.

 

[MennoSota]

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").






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).







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!







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.





.

I have placed no prohibitions.
Josiah, do you baptize everyone and anyone whether they ask for it or not? A simple yes or no is adequate for my question.

 

[MennoSota]

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



Slavery is now abolished, Glory to God...



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...



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



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...



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

Thanks. You prove, definitely, with your post, that grace is not a part of your version of salvation. You are preaching an anathema message that is contrary to God and his word.

 

[MennoSota]

Prove that from 1 Corinthians 1:16 and Acts 16:15.

Where does the Bible state that we cannot do anything (like post on the internet) unless there is an obviously example of such being done in the Bible?





Prove that from 1 Corinthians 1:16 and Acts 16:15.

Where does the Bible state that we cannot do anything (like post on the internet) unless there is an obviously example of such being done in the Bible?

You keep (perfectly) parroting Anabaptist tradition of their inventions of Anti-Paedobaptism, Credobaptism and their embrace of radical synergism and their silly rubric - but never, ever, substantiating it. In fact, you usually go on to repudiate your own points.






Substantiate for me that we cannot do anything that you have not read as done in the NT (like posting on the internet)? Several have repeatedly pointed out the ABSURDITY of this rubric you are echoing but clearly, undeniably, reject yourself. IF you refused to give communion to women..... refused to use electricity in church.... refused to allow Gentiles to administer Baptism.... refused to have baptism tanks.... refused to pass around Communion in little cut up pieces of white bread and little plastic cups of Welche's grape juice... refused to love blonde haired people..... allowed abortion.... maybe I'd say at least you yourself believe your own point. But you don't. So why must we?

Friend, it's spoken of since 63 AD - within the time frame of the Apostles. What is NOT found in the Bible or for FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS is the new inventions you keep parroting: Anti-Paedobaptism, Credobaptism and the rubric that we can't do anything unless it is documented as having been done in the Bible and if some group of humans is NOT specifically mentioned as INCLUDED, they are dogmatically EXCLUDED. Friend, those Anabaptists were pretty wacky and their ideas very new. You are the one parroting brand new, made up inventions created out of the blue by radical synergists. And you show, you not only have NOTHING to support those positions, it seems you don't even agree with the very apologetics you are parroting from them.






again, yet again, one more time, how often must this be posted over how many months and in how many threads until you read it? NO ONE ON THE PLANET EARTH believes or has ever believed that any CEREMONY or means or human whatever is the Savior. It is YOU who are echoing some of the synergism of the Anabaptist (God MUST have our help - a certain age, minimun IQ, the knowledge of x,y,z, permission, etc), it's YOU suggesting that Jesus is not THE Savior, not our side. We simply reject your premise that if some human activity is involved, God is rendered impotent to save. My God is bigger than that.


See posts 118, 125, 135




.

Neither of the two passages you mark prove anything about infant baptism. Ultimately, you have created a doctrine that is not established in scripture, but is a dogma in your church. You, infer infants into the text with nothing to support it except the word "household." You would have your case thrown out in a court of law.

 

[Josiah]

Neither of the two passages you mark prove anything about infant baptism

They both disprove your dogmatic statements: EVERY baptism in the Bible is of those over the age of X and already saved. You've ALREADY admitted it (perhaps without realizing it) when you admitted these are SILENT about the age or salvation of the people when they were baptized. Thus, you constant point is.... well.... you admit it.... false.

And I have to ask again, where is your substantiation that we cannot do anything that is not recorded in the NT as having been done? After all, you are posting on the internet.... I'm guessing your church doesn't forbid women from receiving communion... I'm guessing your church doesn't forbid the use of electricity.... your church doesn't forbid youth groups or youth pastors.... your church doesn't forbid Gentiles from administering baptism.... your church doesn't forbid loving blonde haired persons....

You, infer infants into the text with nothing to support it except the word "household." You would have your case thrown out in a court of law.

You have it backwards. I said the verses are SILENT as to age, race, color, nationality, education, IQ, desires, and whether or not they had previously chose Jesus as their personal Savior. YOU are the one who said these households could NOT contain those under the age of X or unbelievers because YOUR own household does not. I think THAT would be thrown out of a court of law.




.

 

[MennoSota]

They both disprove your dogmatic statements: EVERY baptism in the Bible is of those over the age of X and already saved. You've ALREADY admitted it (perhaps without realizing it) when you admitted these are SILENT about the age or salvation of the people when they were baptized. Thus, you constant point is.... well.... you admit it.... false.

And I have to ask again, where is your substantiation that we cannot do anything that is not recorded in the NT as having been done? After all, you are posting on the internet.... I'm guessing your church doesn't forbid women from receiving communion... I'm guessing your church doesn't forbid the use of electricity.... your church doesn't forbid youth groups or youth pastors.... your church doesn't forbid Gentiles from administering baptism.... your church doesn't forbid loving blonde haired persons....







You have it backwards. I said the verses are SILENT as to age, race, color, nationality, education, IQ, desires, and whether or not they had previously chose Jesus as their personal Savior. YOU are the one who said these households could NOT contain those under the age of X or unbelievers because YOUR own household does not. I think THAT would be thrown out of a court of law.




.

They are silent as to infants.
Again, do you baptize unwilling or unknowledgeable humans in your church? Yes or no?
Do you go into nursing homes or hospitals where dementia patients reside and baptize them? Do you go to homes where disabled persons live and baptize them without consent?
Be honest. The Bible is silent regarding infant baptism. You cannot find it in scripture. The closest you come is to infer infants into the word household.
When scripture is silent, do you always infer whatever you want into the passage or do you refrain from creating a dogma without evidence?

 

[Josiah]

.

An open letter to MennoSota...



Friend,


1. First READ posts 118, 125, 135, 143. Read those BEFORE you continue.


2. You (perhaps accidentally) have raised an obvious and solid point: MUCH of Christian theology is derived from Scripture but not specifically stated (The Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, etc.). ALL theological positions and traditions acknowledge that (including Lutherans and Calvinists who embrace Sola Scriptura). Your premise that the words of the Bible must exactly STATE such is actually not in keeping with Sola Scriptura or 2000 years of Christianity and (obviously) you yourself don't insist upon that for yourself (as you've made so obvious). But your point is valid: Traditionally, Christians HAVE embraced (even dogmatically) positions not exactly so stated in the Bible. The problem I see is your double-standard - you can "derive" but others can't, and you permit yourself to embrace tradition (you perfectly echo Anabaptist tradition) but reject ecumenical, historic, orthodox tradition: YOU think very highly of what YOU now think/feel/observe but deny others looking to what ALL Christians, together, for 1500 years, going back to the Apostles, did/do.


3. I've NEVER understood how one an be a Reformed Baptist, lol. It's like saying a Dog-Cat. They are about as directly opposite of each other as is possible. Anyway..... IF (big word there)..... IF your position were: "I think there is insufficient support for the idea that Baptism is a means of grace" AND STOPPED THERE.... you'd be in the company of some of the later-day Calvinists (Calvin himself rejected that, he affirmed Baptism as a means of grace) but of course, Calvinism was completely reinvented after Calvin and that included a non-dogmatic (sic) questioning (even at times denial) of Baptism as a means of grace. BUT (and here's the point) they passionately rejected the dogmas YOU are so obsessed with: Anti-Paedobaptism, Credobaptism... and your equal obsession with the rubric that we can't do anything unless it's illustrated in the Bible, if a group is not INCLUDED they are thus dogmatically EXCLUDED, and that baptism is invalid unless every body part is covered by an abundance of water. In other words, they rejected Anabaptism. They also rejected the synergism of the Anabaptist - the whole point that God CANNOT save a baby. Those Calvinist repudiated all the Anabaptist traditions you have so perfectly, verbatim been echoing for as long as I've known you - these later day Calvinists REJECTED and REPUDIATED every one of those inventions/traditions - the ones you are defending and parroting. ALL they did was suggest (nothing dogmatic!!!!!) that Baptism AS A MEANS OF GRACE has insufficient support. I disagree with them.... but IMO it's not an unreasonable position (and they are careful to NOT say it dogmatically). They SUPPORT infant baptism (and by sprikling/pouring).... they REJECT the synergism you have been promoting.... they REJECT the silly rubrics you've been promoting (but never following).... they just won't say that God can or does use baptism as a tool to grant His free gift of faith (which is NEVER requested, NEVER sought, NEVER remotely understood until AFTER it is given). I don't agree with this reinvention of Calvins' view (Calvin himself was pretty orthodox on this) BUT I get the point: Yeah, whether we are discussing the Trinity or the Two Natures of Christ or ANY historic, orthodox, ecumenical belief - there CAN be (and probably will be) some who say "I think there is insufficient support to hold that dogmatically." Luther did that with the views of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. BUT that's NOT your position. You are not a new-Calvinist on this, you are perfectly, verbatim, echoing the traditions of those wacky German Anabaptists that those very same Calvinists repudiated as much as Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics and others did. IF you held to the new Calvinist position - I could respectfully disagree. But your wacky Anabaptist stuff seems WAY beneigh you and just contradicts all the monergism and sound theology you will proclaim when you get off this Anabaptist wackedoodle stuff.




- Josiah



.

Now, to this diversion (always another from you, isn't there?)....

Do you go into nursing homes or hospitals where dementia patients reside and baptize them? Do you go to homes where disabled persons live and baptize them without consent? Be honest.

How remarkably silly..... and how entirely off-topic since your diversion does NOTHING to substantiate the new inventions of those synergistic Anabaptists and their dogmas you are promoting: Anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism (and your silly rubrics that you yourself repudiate and never follow)....


Friend, children are children.... they are under the authority of their parents... God gives children to their parents, not the other way around. You seem to insist children MUST request something and be fully aware of it or its sinful for parents to give something. Do you have childtren???? In the OT, God COMMANDED parents to circumcize their little boys... at 7 days.... I doubt too many of those boys request it, give their permission and know all the theology and issues surrounding circumcision.... and it hurts (I watched my son be circumcised). Was God sinning? Were those parents sinning? And last week, my wife took him in for his flu shot. He didn't ask for it. He's ignorant of the flu and of fle shots. Are you actually going to insist we were sinning? And we've fed him.... changed diapers.... put him to bed.... put clothes on him... did LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of things for him without his full knowledge and without getting written permission from him. Do you have children? Were you ever a child? Did you parents get written permission from you to take you to school? To take you to the dentist or doctor? To give you a present? Come on, sometimes your silliness is just amazing..... Parents aren't sinning.....

Now, you're correct, for 2000 years, it has been the CUSTOM (not dogma) to require the expressed permission and will of the parents. This is because the Commandment is that we are to honor PARENTS (not go against their authority) and because PARENTS (especially dads) are responsible for the spiritual life of their children, not the church or anyone else. We can OFFER but not mandate/circumvent. AND because parents make very signifcant promises in the traditional baptism ceremony - and clearly they have to agree to that. This is why in our preschool, the kids aren't even told about baptism - the PARENTS are. But when the child turns 18, we no longer need the parent's permission.

Yes, when a person is old enough, sure it is good to include them. This even goes for children. The day will come (it's still far away) when we will involve our son in decisions that impact him, but he's 8 months old. And until he is 18, we parents will trump him every time. I was 13 once.... and, looking back.... I'm GLAD my parents often overruled my will and were so loving and giving.

My pastor told of a boy, 8 years old I think, whose parents FINALLY chose to have him baptized. The pastor meet with all of them and the boy was clearly hesitant about the whole thing. Yes, even at 8, the pastor cared about his feelings and will.... and talked to him about it. Turns out, what concerned him was being focus of the whole service and with lots of friends there.... the pastor mentioned a private service, just he and his immediately family, and the boy was thrilled.


You are just creating endless, irrelevant diversions.... each sillier than the last. All to defend two new dogmas suddenly invented out of the blue in the 16th Century by the Anabaptists (whom you parrot perfectly): Anti-Paedobaptism (MUST be over the age of X) and Credobaptism (MUST first choose Jesus as their personal Savior), the two dogmas you promote. But they didn't do so because of any Scripture - like you, they had none (but they admitted it!), they did so because it "fit" with their radical synergism (which you occasionally parrot, too). Those wachy synergistic Anabaptists just inferred it all from their synergism. Scripture doesn't teach ANY of their wacky new dogmas or rubrics - as you have made so evident.



- Josiah



.

 

[Lamb]

.
Friend, children are children.... they are under the authority of their parents...

This is a key point about infant baptism...the authority of parents and that authority is given by God.

 

[Josiah]

MennoSota -


How remarkably silly..... and how entirely off-topic since your diversion does NOTHING to substantiate the new inventions of those synergistic Anabaptists and their dogmas you are promoting: Anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism (and your silly rubrics that you yourself repudiate and never follow)....


Friend, children are children.... they are under the authority of their parents... God gives children to their parents, not the other way around. You seem to insist children MUST request something and be fully aware of it or its sinful for parents to give something. Do you have childtren???? In the OT, God COMMANDED parents to circumcize their little boys... at 7 days.... I doubt too many of those boys request it, give their permission and know all the theology and issues surrounding circumcision.... and it hurts (I watched my son be circumcised). Was God sinning? Were those parents sinning? And last week, my wife took him in for his flu shot. He didn't ask for it. He's ignorant of the flu and of fle shots. Are you actually going to insist we were sinning? And we've fed him.... changed diapers.... put him to bed.... put clothes on him... did LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of things for him without his full knowledge and without getting written permission from him. Do you have children? Were you ever a child? Did you parents get written permission from you to take you to school? To take you to the dentist or doctor? To give you a present? Come on, sometimes your silliness is just amazing..... Parents aren't sinning.....


Now, you're correct, for 2000 years, it has been the CUSTOM (not dogma) to require the expressed permission and will of the parents. This is because the Commandment is that we are to honor PARENTS (not go against their authority) and because PARENTS (especially dads) are responsible for the spiritual life of their children, not the church or anyone else. We can OFFER but not mandate/circumvent. AND because parents make very signifcant promises in the traditional baptism ceremony - and clearly they have to agree to that. This is why in our preschool, the kids aren't even told about baptism - the PARENTS are. But when the child turns 18, we no longer need the parent's permission.


Yes, when a person is old enough, sure it is good to include them. This even goes for children. The day will come (it's still far away) when we will involve our son in decisions that impact him, but he's 8 months old. And until he is 18, we parents will trump him every time. I was 13 once.... and, looking back.... I'm GLAD my parents often overruled my will and were so loving and giving.


My pastor told of a boy, 8 years old I think, whose parents FINALLY chose to have him baptized. The pastor meet with all of them and the boy was clearly hesitant about the whole thing. Yes, even at 8, the pastor cared about his feelings and will.... and talked to him about it. Turns out, what concerned him was being focus of the whole service and with lots of friends there.... the pastor mentioned a private service, just he and his immediately family, and the boy was thrilled.


You are just creating endless, irrelevant diversions.... each sillier than the last. All to defend two new dogmas suddenly invented out of the blue in the 16th Century by the Anabaptists (whom you parrot perfectly): Anti-Paedobaptism (MUST be over the age of X) and Credobaptism (MUST first choose Jesus as their personal Savior), the two dogmas you promote. But they didn't do so because of any Scripture - like you, they had none (but they admitted it!), they did so because it "fit" with their radical synergism (which you occasionally parrot, too). Those wachy synergistic Anabaptists just inferred it all from their synergism. Scripture doesn't teach ANY of their wacky new dogmas or rubrics - as you have made so evident.


.

This is a key point about infant baptism...the authority of parents and that authority is given by God.

The argument that children are the authority over parents and that no one can give a child anything without the infant's or child's expressed permission, request and full knowledge, is just silly. Any parent (or child) realizes that. Anyone who has read the Bible realizes that. The commandment is "Honor your father and mother" not "Parents be subject to your child."


But what we are seeing is still more diversion. Our friend since he came here has been promoting the Anabaptist's new dogmas of Anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism but has yet to substantiate them, in fact, seems to constantly undermine (even repudiate) his OWN arguments for them. But he constantly parrots their denominational tradition (perfectly) while he repudiates anyone doing that, constantly repudiates assumptions and implications while offering nothing but that.

And worse, parrots two CRAZY ideas of the synergistic Anabaptists: That we can do ONLY what is illustrated as done in the Bible (he does his by posting on the internet, go figure) and that if a group is not explicitely INCLUDED in the Bible, they ergo are dogmatically EXCLUDED. Both of these arguments - that he insists upon - are ones he himself rejects and doesn't follow.



See post # 144, an open letter to our esteemed brother....




- Josiah



.

 

[MennoSota]

.






Now, to this diversion (always another from you, isn't there?)....




How remarkably silly..... and how entirely off-topic since your diversion does NOTHING to substantiate the new inventions of those synergistic Anabaptists and their dogmas you are promoting: Anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism (and your silly rubrics that you yourself repudiate and never follow)....


Friend, children are children.... they are under the authority of their parents... God gives children to their parents, not the other way around. You seem to insist children MUST request something and be fully aware of it or its sinful for parents to give something. Do you have childtren???? In the OT, God COMMANDED parents to circumcize their little boys... at 7 days.... I doubt too many of those boys request it, give their permission and know all the theology and issues surrounding circumcision.... and it hurts (I watched my son be circumcised). Was God sinning? Were those parents sinning? And last week, my wife took him in for his flu shot. He didn't ask for it. He's ignorant of the flu and of fle shots. Are you actually going to insist we were sinning? And we've fed him.... changed diapers.... put him to bed.... put clothes on him... did LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of things for him without his full knowledge and without getting written permission from him. Do you have children? Were you ever a child? Did you parents get written permission from you to take you to school? To take you to the dentist or doctor? To give you a present? Come on, sometimes your silliness is just amazing..... Parents aren't sinning.....

Now, you're correct, for 2000 years, it has been the CUSTOM (not dogma) to require the expressed permission and will of the parents. This is because the Commandment is that we are to honor PARENTS (not go against their authority) and because PARENTS (especially dads) are responsible for the spiritual life of their children, not the church or anyone else. We can OFFER but not mandate/circumvent. AND because parents make very signifcant promises in the traditional baptism ceremony - and clearly they have to agree to that. This is why in our preschool, the kids aren't even told about baptism - the PARENTS are. But when the child turns 18, we no longer need the parent's permission.

Yes, when a person is old enough, sure it is good to include them. This even goes for children. The day will come (it's still far away) when we will involve our son in decisions that impact him, but he's 8 months old. And until he is 18, we parents will trump him every time. I was 13 once.... and, looking back.... I'm GLAD my parents often overruled my will and were so loving and giving.

My pastor told of a boy, 8 years old I think, whose parents FINALLY chose to have him baptized. The pastor meet with all of them and the boy was clearly hesitant about the whole thing. Yes, even at 8, the pastor cared about his feelings and will.... and talked to him about it. Turns out, what concerned him was being focus of the whole service and with lots of friends there.... the pastor mentioned a private service, just he and his immediately family, and the boy was thrilled.


You are just creating endless, irrelevant diversions.... each sillier than the last. All to defend two new dogmas suddenly invented out of the blue in the 16th Century by the Anabaptists (whom you parrot perfectly): Anti-Paedobaptism (MUST be over the age of X) and Credobaptism (MUST first choose Jesus as their personal Savior), the two dogmas you promote. But they didn't do so because of any Scripture - like you, they had none (but they admitted it!), they did so because it "fit" with their radical synergism (which you occasionally parrot, too). Those wachy synergistic Anabaptists just inferred it all from their synergism. Scripture doesn't teach ANY of their wacky new dogmas or rubrics - as you have made so evident.



- Josiah



.

Notice: You have no scriptural support in your entire treatise.

 

[Arsenios]

Originally Posted by Josiah

Friend, children are children....
They are under the authority of their parents...

This is a key point about infant baptism...
The authority of parents and...
That authority is given by God.

What she said...


Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

Now, to this diversion (always another from you, isn't there?)....




How remarkably silly..... and how entirely off-topic since your diversion does NOTHING to substantiate the new inventions of those synergistic Anabaptists and their dogmas you are promoting: Anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism (and your silly rubrics that you yourself repudiate and never follow)....


Friend, children are children.... they are under the authority of their parents... God gives children to their parents, not the other way around. You seem to insist children MUST request something and be fully aware of it or its sinful for parents to give something. Do you have childtren???? In the OT
, God COMMANDED parents to circumcize their little boys... at 7 days.... I doubt too many of those boys request it, give their permission and know all the theology and issues surrounding circumcision.... and it hurts (I watched my son be circumcised). Was God sinning? Were those parents sinning? And last week, my wife took him in for his flu shot. He didn't ask for it. He's ignorant of the flu and of fle shots. Are you actually going to insist we were sinning? And we've fed him.... changed diapers.... put him to bed.... put clothes on him... did LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of things for him without his full knowledge and without getting written permission from him. Do you have children? Were you ever a child? Did you parents get written permission from you to take you to school? To take you to the dentist or doctor? To give you a present? Come on, sometimes your silliness is just amazing..... Parents aren't sinning.....

Now, you're correct, for 2000 years, it has been the CUSTOM (not dogma) to require the expressed permission and will of the parents. This is because the Commandment is that we are to honor PARENTS (not go against their authority) and because PARENTS (especially dads) are responsible for the spiritual life of their children, not the church or anyone else. We can OFFER but not mandate/circumvent. AND because parents make very signifcant promises in the traditional baptism ceremony - and clearly they have to agree to that. This is why in our preschool, the kids aren't even told about baptism - the PARENTS are. But when the child turns 18, we no longer need the parent's permission.

Yes, when a person is old enough, sure it is good to include them. This even goes for children. The day will come (it's still far away) when we will involve our son in decisions that impact him, but he's 8 months old. And until he is 18, we parents will trump him every time. I was 13 once.... and, looking back.... I'm GLAD my parents often overruled my will and were so loving and giving.

My pastor told of a boy, 8 years old I think, whose parents FINALLY chose to have him baptized. The pastor meet with all of them and the boy was clearly hesitant about the whole thing. Yes, even at 8, the pastor cared about his feelings and will.... and talked to him about it. Turns out, what concerned him was being focus of the whole service and with lots of friends there.... the pastor mentioned a private service, just he and his immediately family, and the boy was thrilled.


You are just creating endless, irrelevant diversions.... each sillier than the last. All to defend two new dogmas suddenly invented out of the blue in the 16th Century by the Anabaptists (whom you parrot perfectly): Anti-Paedobaptism (MUST be over the age of X) and Credobaptism (MUST first choose Jesus as their personal Savior), the two dogmas you promote. But they didn't do so because of any Scripture - like you, they had none (but they admitted it!), they did so because it "fit" with their radical synergism (which you occasionally parrot, too). Those wachy synergistic Anabaptists just inferred it all from their synergism. Scripture doesn't teach ANY of their wacky new dogmas or rubrics - as you have made so evident.



- Josiah



.

Notice: You have no scriptural support in your entire treatise.

Actually, that's you with no Scripture to support your silly rule for parents.,,,, There IS Scripture about CHILDREN honoring PARENTS (read the Big Ten, it's there and elsewhere) - you have it completely backwards in your argument; there is Scripture about CHILDREN being submissive to their parents but there is NOTHING about how parents must get permission from their infants children, how children are the authority over their parents, how parents must get permission and the child must fully understand everything before they can be circumcized. or fed or put to bed or taken to the doctor, or sent to school, etc. It's YOU with the very unbiblical diversion.




And we've been waiting for MONTHS for you to share the words of Scripture that state,,,,

1) Thou canst NOT baptize anyone unless and until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday ( to support the Anti-Paedobaptism dogma and denomination tradition you parrot)
2) Thou canst NOT baptize anyone unless and until they have given public proof that they have chosen Jesus as their personal savior (to support the Credobaptism dogma you promote)
3) Thou canst do NOTHING that is not first illustrated as having been done in the NT (to support the rubric you demand but never follow)
4) If a group of humans are not expressly INCLUDED in Scripture, ergo they are dogmatically EXCLUDED (to support another rubric you demand but repudiate)
5) Thou must make sure every human cell is covered by water or the baptism is invalid (to support the immersion dogma you promote).
6) Parents canst do NOTHING unless the infant/child gives their written consent and fully understands all aspects of what the parent requests (to fulfill your latest apologetic)


Nope. You haven't presented a single Scripture for these. Just the perpetual verbatim parroting of the Anabaptist tradition these radical synergists invented in the 16th century.... NOT because they even claimed Scripture taught them but so as to fit with their radical synergism.



See post 144




.

 

[MennoSota]

Actually, that's you. There IS Scripture about CHILDREN honoring PARENTS (read the Big Ten, it's there and elsewhere) - you have it completely backwards in your argument; there is Scripture about CHILDREN being submissive to their parents but there is NOTHING about how parents must get permission from their infants children, how children are the authority over their parents, how parents must get permission and the child must fully understand everything before they can be circumcized. or fed or put to bed or taken to the doctor, or sent to school, etc. It's YOU with the very unbiblical diversion.



And we've been waiting for MONTHS for you to share the words of Scripture that state:

1) Thou canst NOT baptize anyone unless and until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday ( to support the Anti-Paedobaptism dogma and denomination tradition you parrot)
2) Thou canst NOT baptize anyone unless and until they have given public proof that they have chosen Jesus as their personal savior (to support the Credobaptism dogma you promote)
3) Thou canst do NOTHING that is not first illustrated as having been done in the NT (to support the rubric you demand but never follow)
4) If a group of humans are not expressly INCLUDED in Scripture, ergo they are dogmatically EXCLUDED (to support another rubric you demand but repudiate)
5) Thou must make sure every human cell is covered by water or the baptism is invalid (to support the immersion dogma you promote).
6) Parents canst do NOTHING unless the infant/child gives their written consent and fully understands all aspects of what the parent requests (to fulfill your latest apologetic)


Nope. You haven't presented a single Scripture for these. Just the perpetual verbatim parroting of the Anabaptist tradition these radical synergists invented in the 16th century.... NOT because they even claimed Scripture taught them but so as to fit with their radical synergism.


See post 144




.

No scripture yet again. (I can do this all day, Josiah.)

 

[MoreCoffee]

The key about baptism is that baptism is a sacrament given by God to the Church for marking the faithful as members of Christ and as elect by God. It is a sacrament where God does the work and people participate. It is, in short, a visual and tactile icon of salvation that God chose to convey the grace of salvation to his people. It is an icon in these ways:

It pictures heavenly reality by earthly matter applied with earthly voices pronouncing the heavenly message of God and it shows in vivid visual form what salvation is. It does this by showing these things:

• Baptism washes away sins - not by removing earthly dirt but by appealing to God for a good conscience.
• Baptism kills sinful self-flesh and brings new self-life in Christ.
• Baptism unites the self with Christ - saving the faithful by bringing them into union with Jesus Christ.

Baptism is instrumental in God's salvation. It is not water that saves nor the heavenly words spoken by earthly voices nor the understanding that through baptism one is united with Christ. What saves is God working through the means he created for his purposes and to his own glory. Baptism sheds the divine light and the divine mercy upon the elect. It is something that can be seen telling forth the story of what is unseen. It is, in effect, an icon of faith as faith is described in the opening verse of Hebrews 11.

Faith is the assurance of what we hope for, being certain of what we cannot see.​

Baptism assures the faithful of what they hope for (being united with Christ having been cleansed of sin and guilt and washed clean in Christ's blood to reside with Christ forever) and it makes the faithful certain of the things that they cannot see with earthly eyes. God blesses his people by making visible what he promises. The rest of Hebrews 11 testifies to this. It is applicable to baptism because baptism is God's gift of faith and eternal life in Jesus Christ.

 

[MennoSota]

The key about baptism is that baptism is a sacrament given by God to the Church for marking the faithful as members of Christ and as elect by God. It is a sacrament where God does the work and people participate. It is, in short, a visual and tactile icon of salvation that God chose to convey the grace of salvation to his people. It is an icon in these ways:

It pictures heavenly reality by earthly matter applied with earthly voices pronouncing the heavenly message of God and it shows in vivid visual form what salvation is. It does this by showing these things:

• Baptism washes away sins - not by removing earthly dirt but by appealing to God for a good conscience.
• Baptism kills sinful self-flesh and brings new self-life in Christ.
• Baptism unites the self with Christ - saving the faithful by bringing them into union with Jesus Christ.

Baptism is instrumental in God's salvation. It is not water that saves nor the heavenly words spoken by earthly voices nor the understanding that through baptism one is united with Christ. What saves is God working through the means he created for his purposes and to his own glory. Baptism sheds the divine light and the divine mercy upon the elect. It is something that can be seen telling forth the story of what is unseen. It is, in effect, an icon of faith as faith is described in the opening verse of Hebrews 11.

Faith is the assurance of what we hope for, being certain of what we cannot see.​

Baptism assures the faithful of what they hope for (being united with Christ having been cleansed of sin and guilt and washed clean in Christ's blood to reside with Christ forever) and it makes the faithful certain of the things that they cannot see with earthly eyes. God blesses his people by making visible what he promises. The rest of Hebrews 11 testifies to this. It is applicable to baptism because baptism is God's gift of faith and eternal life in Jesus Christ.

Salvation takes place before baptism. Baptism is a wonderful symbol of what God has already done.

 

[Arsenios]

Salvation takes place before baptism.
Baptism is a wonderful symbol of what God has already done.

Menno -

Whom did Christ command/commission to do His Baptizing?

Are we, from these so commanded, Baptized INTO Christ?

You already know the vss of these questions...


Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

Salvation takes place before baptism. Baptism is a wonderful symbol of what God has already done.

What, AGAIN, no Scripture?

From the one who INSISTS all positions must be confirmed by words found in verses and constantly complains about others not quoting a verse to support everything? AGAIN? Hum. Seems to be two contrary standards: one for you and the opposite for everyone else.


How about 1 Corinthians 1:16 and Acts 16:15.
Prove that every member of those households had:
1) Already chose Jesus as their personal savior and gave adequate public proof of such (to substantiate your Credobaptism tradition you DOGMATICALLY mandate),
2) Had already celebrated their Xth birthday (to substantiate the Anti-Paedobaptism tradition you parrot endlessly),
3) We are forbidden to do anything that is not illustrated as having been done in the Bible (like posting on the internet) to substantiate the rubric you demand of all except yourself,
4) If a group of humans is not specifically INCLUDED in a verse, they ergo are dogmatically EXCLUDED and forbidden (to substantiate another rubric you demand of all but you yourself).
5) Every cell of the bodies of all the people in those households were entirely covered by water (to substantiate you immersion mandate)


See post 144






.