The undisclosed age of “X”

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]





The earliest reference we have in all Christian history to Anti-Padeobaptism or Credobaptism comes from the late 16th Century. The dogmas you parrot are late 16th Century inventions, unheard of and indeed denounced before that.


The earliest explicit record of a baby being baptized is from the year 140 AD and it comes from one of the greatest and most esteemed Church Fathers, Irenius who states in A.D. 189 that he was baptized shortly after birth and was born in A.D 140. The Second Century is earlier than the late 16th Century, I'm sure you will yield.



Here are some statements from the Early Church since you specifically asked:

Hippolytus:

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).


Origen:

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given also to infants. (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).


“The Church received from the apostles the giving of baptism also to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).


Cyprian of Carthage

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does an infant approaches more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5 A.D. 253).


Gregory of Nazianz

“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal of baptism because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

“‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly I respond. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated” (ibid., 40:28). A.D. 388


John Chrysostom

“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors it bestows! For this reason we baptize also infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).


Augustine (Admired especially by Calvinists)

“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for infants, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39
[A.D. 408]).

“Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that an infant is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

“By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses also into infants. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).


Council of Carthage V

“Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt the abandoned children were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the North African legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians” (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).


Council of Mileum II

“Whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle Paul says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the catholic church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith also infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration” (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).


All of these are from the Early Church and are before the late 16th century when the dogmas of Anti-Paedobaptism, Credobaptism and Immersion-Only Baptism were invented and began to be practiced.




.

Thanks. So there is at least 100 years after the Apostles where someone makes up paedobaptism from some heretical imagination that baptizing babies will save them.
Following your line of thought regarding people making it up, we can conclude that your make believe dogma is older than the anabaptist dogma. But, following your train of thought we can state that both the age of X and paedobaptism are simply made up and have no biblical support. It's just that your heresy is older.

 

[Josiah]

Admit that paedobaptism didn't exist in the Early Church


.

The earliest reference we have in all Christian history to Anti-Padeobaptism or Credobaptism comes from the late 16th Century. The dogmas you parrot are late 16th Century inventions, unheard of and indeed denounced before that.


The earliest explicit historic record of a baby being baptized is from the year 140 AD and it comes from one of the greatest and most esteemed Church Fathers, Irenius who states in A.D. 189 that he was baptized shortly after birth and was born in A.D 140. The Second Century is earlier than the late 16th Century when Anti-Paedobaptism was first invented and practiced.



Here are some statements from the Early Church since you specifically asked:


Hippolytus:

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).


Origen:

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given also to infants. (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 A.D. 248]).


“The Church received from the apostles the giving of baptism also to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).


Cyprian of Carthage

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does an infant approaches more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5 A.D. 253).


Gregory of Nazianz

“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal of baptism because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

“‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly I respond. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated” (ibid., 40:28). A.D. 388


John Chrysostom

“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors it bestows! For this reason we baptize also infants, though they are not defiled by sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).


Augustine (Admired especially by Calvinists)

“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for infants, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39
[A.D. 408]).

“Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that an infant is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

“By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses also into infants. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).


Council of Carthage V

“Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt the abandoned children were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the North African legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians” (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).


Council of Mileum II

“Whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle Paul says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the catholic church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith also infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration” (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).


All of these are from the Early Church and are before the late 16th century when the dogmas of Anti-Paedobaptism, Credobaptism and Immersion-Only Baptism were invented and began to be practiced.



.

Thanks.

Sure. You stated I could not document infant baptisms in the Early Church and I proved you wrong. Big of you to admit it.


Can you historically document in the Early Church where infants were forbidden? You've already documented that you have no Scripture that teaches ANY of the Anabaptist inventions you parrot, and now you realize you also don't have anything in history prior to that Anabaptist in the 16th Century, either.




.

 

[atpollard]

Thanks. So there is at least 100 years after the Apostles where someone makes up paedobaptism from some heretical imagination that baptizing babies will save them.
Following your line of thought regarding people making it up, we can conclude that your make believe dogma is older than the anabaptist dogma. But, following your train of thought we can state that both the age of X and paedobaptism are simply made up and have no biblical support. It's just that your heresy is older.

:rofl3: :thumbsup:

 

[MennoSota]

Sure. You stated I could not document infant baptisms in the Early Church and I proved you wrong. Big of you to admit it.


Can you historically document in the Early Church where infants were forbidden? You've already documented that you have no Scripture that teaches ANY of the Anabaptist inventions you parrot, and now you realize you also don't have anything in history prior to that Anabaptist in the 16th Century, either.




.

No. I stated you cannot document infant baptism at the time of the Apostles. You demonstrated that the earliest heresy of paedobaptism occurs about 100 years after the church started. All that means is that the here's is longer lived.
But, despite not having any support in scripture, you won't admit that it is a made up dogma by others not supported by God's word.
There is absolutely no reason for me to show documentation of the Apostles forbidding infant baptism when it was not even occuring.
Since infant baptism was not happening, the Apostles would have no reason to forbid the heresy. It isn't until a century after they lived that the heresy arises. Thus the Bible has nothing to say about it.
Your request is similar to me asking you to show where in the Bible one can find God saying that using a seer stone to read golden tablets provided by the angel Moroni is forbidden. How would the Apostles have anticipated the heresy of Joseph Smith?

 

[Josiah]

No. I stated you cannot document infant baptism at the time of the Apostles.

Actually, you said in the "Early Church" And I proved you wrong (on that point, too) Read post # 82.


Can you document anyone before the year 100 AD was prohibited from baptism because they were under the never-disclosed "Age of Accountability"? Can you prove from 1 Corinthians 1:16 ad Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 that all under the age of X were forbidden to be baptized? That all in the household that had not previously in chronological time had proved they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior were forbidden to be baptized? Can you prove such prohibitions in all the cases of Baptism before 100 AD? Can you document even ONE person before the year 100 AD being forbidden baptism due to their age, their being under the never-disclosed "age of accountability?" Even just one before 100 AD? Before 400 AD? Before 1500 AD?


You've already proved the opening post to be wrong. You've already documented you have not one Scripture that teaches any of these Anabaptist inventions in the late 16th Century. And you've admitted your claim that infant baptist didn't exist in the Early Church is wrong.

 

[MennoSota]

Actually, you said in the "Early Church" And I proved you wrong (on that point, too)

Can you document anyone before the year 100 AD who prohibited any under the never-disclosed "Age of Accountability" from being baptized? Can you prove from 1 Corinthians 1:16 ad Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 that all under the age of X were forbidden to be baptized? That all in the household that had not previously in chronological time had proved they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior were forbidden to be baptized? Can you prove such prohibitions in all the cases of Baptism before 100 AD?


You demonstrated that the earliest heresy of paedobaptism occurs about 100 years after the church started. All that means is that the here's is longer lived.
But, despite not having any support in scripture, you won't admit that it is a made up dogma by others not supported by God's word.

[/QUOTE]See my revised post as I added more to assist you in seeing how foolish you are being.

 

[Josiah]

MennoSota,


1. You already proved the OP to be wrong, and that there IS an Anabaptist dogma of Anti-Paedobaptism.


2. You already documented you have not one Scripture that teaches ANY of these Anabaptist inventions they made in the 16th Century.


3. You already admitted your claim that infant baptism didn't exist in the Early Church was wrong.


4. How you CLAIM there were no under-the-age-of-X baptisms before the year 100 AD. Prove it.


Your whole premise is that it didn't exist and that's why you can't find any is Scripture forbidding it. Okay, I understand your premise. Now prove it true. Start with 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 and prove there weren't any baptized that were under the age of X, under the Age of Accountability. Prove that the case.

Remember: YOU are the one defending an invention of the Anabaptists in the late 16th Century that declares there is some dogmatic prohibition based on age, it's your's to defend. There is a commandment to "love one another." If 1500 years after Jesus said that, some Russian man said, "That doesn't apply to Americans - Americans are forbidden to be loved!" Would you accept that this is proven because no Americans were loved before the year 100 AD? Of course not; your whole premise is silly. But hey, prove it true. Prove for us NO ONE under the age of X was permitted to be baptized before the year 100 AD, list for us the names of all those who were were denied baptism and told "because you are too young."



.

 

[atpollard]

Some statements that predate the ECF, since Josiah brought it up ...

Jesus Christ [c.6 BC to AD 30-33]
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." [Gospel of Mark]

Apostle Peter [c.4 BC to AD 62-64]
"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." [Book of Acts]

Luke the Evangelist [AD 1 to AD 84]
"But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." and "many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized." [Book of Acts]


There are even statements from the pre-ECF era that address the attitude and practice that encourages infant baptism ...

Luke the Evangelist [AD 1 to AD 84]
"Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord" [Book of Acts]

Apostle Paul [4 BC to AD 62-64]
(on Judaisers and circumcision ... which might be applicable to the 'new circumcision') "As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" [Letter to the Galatians]



CREDOBAPTISM: But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus [as] Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." [Romans 10:8-11]

Salvation comes through believing and confessing, not through making babies wet.

 

[Albion]

Some statements that predate the ECF, since Josiah brought it up ...

Jesus Christ [c.6 BC to AD 30-33]
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." [Gospel of Mark]

Apostle Peter [c.4 BC to AD 62-64]
"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." [Book of Acts]

Luke the Evangelist [AD 1 to AD 84]
"But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." and "many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized." [Book of Acts][/qutoeSome statements that predate the ECF, since Josiah brought it up ...

Jesus Christ [c.6 BC to AD 30-33]
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." [Gospel of Mark]

Apostle Peter [c.4 BC to AD 62-64]
"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." [Book of Acts]

Luke the Evangelist [AD 1 to AD 84]
"But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." and "many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized." [Book of Acts]

Apparently there is no way to convince you that all of those are permissive in nature but not obligatory. We can advise you of it, however, so this is it.

 

[MennoSota]

Apparently there is no way to convince you that all of those are permissive in nature but not obligatory. We can advise you of it, however, so this is it.

So...you are permitted to baptize anyone and anything?
Why then do you refuse to walk down the street and baptize everything and everyone around you? By your own teaching you are permitted to do so. Why not walk into a meeting of atheists and baptize them regardless of faith?
Honestly, do you not see the lack of discernment you are displaying by declaring permissibility to baptize anyone and anything regardless of faith?
Go...baptize the unrepentant atheist and tell us how that turned out.

 

[Albion]

So...you are permitted to baptize anyone and anything?

Nope. But I am still fascinated by how your "So...you" replies so often have nothing whatsoever to do with what the other person wrote.

 

[Josiah]

MennoSota,


1. You already proved the OP to be wrong, and that there IS an Anabaptist dogma of Anti-Paedobaptism.


2. You already documented you have not one Scripture that teaches ANY of these Anabaptist inventions they made in the 16th Century.


3. You already admitted your claim that infant baptism didn't exist in the Early Church was wrong.


4. How you CLAIM there were no under-the-age-of-X baptisms before the year 100 AD. Prove it.



Your whole premise is that it didn't exist and that's why you can't find any is Scripture forbidding it. Okay, I understand your premise. Now prove it true. Start with 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 and prove there weren't any baptized that were under the age of X, under the Age of Accountability. Prove that the case.


Remember: YOU are the one defending an invention of the Anabaptists in the late 16th Century that declares there is some dogmatic prohibition based on age, it's your's to defend. There is a commandment to "love one another." If 1500 years after Jesus said that, some Russian man said, "That doesn't apply to Americans - Americans are forbidden to be loved!" Would you accept that this is proven because no Americans were loved before the year 100 AD? Of course not; your whole premise is silly. But hey, prove it true. Prove for us NO ONE under the age of X was permitted to be baptized before the year 100 AD, list for us the names of all those who were were denied baptism and told "because you are too young."


.

Some statements that predate the ECF, since Josiah brought it up ...

Jesus Christ [c.6 BC to AD 30-33]
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." [Gospel of Mark]

Apostle Peter [c.4 BC to AD 62-64]
"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." [Book of Acts]

Luke the Evangelist [AD 1 to AD 84]
"But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." and "many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized." [Book of Acts]


There are even statements from the pre-ECF era that address the attitude and practice that encourages infant baptism ...

Luke the Evangelist [AD 1 to AD 84]
"Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord" [Book of Acts]

Apostle Paul [4 BC to AD 62-64]
(on Judaisers and circumcision ... which might be applicable to the 'new circumcision') "As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" [Letter to the Galatians]

Thank you.

NONE of which are examples of persons before the year 100 AD who were told they could not be baptized because they had not yet reached the undeterminable age of X.

NONE of which state, "First one must attain the never-disclosed age of X before the prohibition of baptism is lifted."



It seems you are trying to parrot two Anabaptist apologetics:

1) The word "kai" in koine Greek MANDATES chronological sequence." A silly and wrong position.

2) We are only allowed to do what is specifically exampled in the pages of the Bible and are forbidden to do any other." An even more silly position that you yourself reject and don't follow.



The issue is a dogma you at first denied exists but finally admitted, it does. Since MennoSota has no Scriptures that say anything about any age of X being a prerequient to Baptism, he changed the issue to the Early Church, insisting I admit baptizing infants was unknown in the Early Church until I proved him wrong (at least he had the honesty to admit he was wrong about that). Then he suggested that the reason neither of you can find any Scripture supporting Anti-Paedobaptism is because it didn't exist BEFORE 140 AD, "no child was baptized before then". But so far, he's not proven that to be the case. To keep it simple, I suggested that he start with 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 and show that several were forbidden baptism because they had not yet attained the age of X.



.

 

[MennoSota]

Thank you.

NONE of which are examples of persons before the year 100 AD who were told they could not be baptized because they had not yet reached the undeterminable age of X.

NONE of which state, "First one must attain the never-disclosed age of X before the prohibition of baptism is lifted."



It seems you are trying to parrot two Anabaptist apologetics:

1) The word "kai" in koine Greek MANDATES chronological sequence." A silly and wrong position.

2) We are only allowed to do what is specifically exampled in the pages of the Bible and are forbidden to do any other." An even more silly position that you yourself reject and don't follow.



The issue is a dogma you at first denied exists but finally admitted, it does. Since MennoSota has no Scriptures that say anything about any age of X being a prerequient to Baptism, he changed the issue to the Early Church, insisting I admit baptizing infants was unknown in the Early Church until I proved him wrong (at least he had the honesty to admit he was wrong about that). Then he suggested that the reason neither of you can find any Scripture supporting Anti-Paedobaptism is because it didn't exist BEFORE 140 AD, "no child was baptized before then". But so far, he's not proven that to be the case. To keep it simple, I suggested that he start with 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 and show that several were forbidden baptism because they had not yet attained the age of X.



.

There is no need to prove what is not recorded in history. What is not recorded is any infant baptism during the life if the Apostles or during the writing of God's word.
All you have is someone much later choosing to baptize an infant and create a dogma from silence.
It's that simple. There is no biblical evidence for infant baptism.
Now, do you wish to follow Albion down the slippery slope of baptizing anything and anyone simply because there is no legalistic command forbidding you? Do you wish to follow the logic train of that statement, cause you have no spiritual argument?

 

[atpollard]

Apparently there is no way to convince you that all of those are permissive in nature but not obligatory. We can advise you of it, however, so this is it.

The Apostles and those traveling with them (Mark and Luke) could not write down everything they did and saw, but what they did write down was not a collection of random historic snapshots that just “happened” to be preserved for posterity, while other “photo albums” were (by chance) lost to us. They wrote what they wrote deliberately, ignoring what they believed was not essential and recording those things they believed were essential to teaching and preserving the faith. They recorded few actual baptism, most are just general references such as “many were baptized”. Yet they did record that Jesus linked belief and baptism with being saved. They did record that Peter commanded thousands to repent and be baptized. They did record that both many in a city and entire households believed and were baptized. It seems arrogantly dismissive for you to insist that what the inspired writers felt was important enough to include, is actually not important and a tradition that they chose not to record is more important.

Baptism is never mentioned alone that I am aware of. The inspired writers ALWAYS felt compelled to link it with something (like believe or repent and ...). The ‘something’ that baptism is always linked to in scripture is always listed before baptism. Baptism is never listed first.

I see no evidence to support your claim that Peter’s command in Acts was ‘permissive’ but not ‘obligatory’. That the thousands who were pierced to the heart had an option to repent or not, but REALLY just needed a good Baptism to be saved. It sounded obligatory to me.

 

[atpollard]

It seems you are trying to parrot two Anabaptist apologetics:

1) The word "kai" in koine Greek MANDATES chronological sequence." A silly and wrong position.

2) We are only allowed to do what is specifically exampled in the pages of the Bible and are forbidden to do any other." An even more silly position that you yourself reject and don't follow.

Nope, that was not my point.

 

[atpollard]

The word "kai" in koine Greek MANDATES chronological sequence."

Is it a Lutheran Apologetic, or just your personal pet apologetic that the word “kai” means “do one or the other, but never, ever do both together” ... like baptizing people who believe. They can be baptized as babies, or they can believe as adults, but Josiah forbids the baptism of people who believe (or allowing those baptized to repent prior to, during or immediately following their baptism.

Because if we violate Josiah’s Apologetic, then Jesus’ claim that those who “believe and are baptized will be saved” might imply that both “belief” and “baptism” should somehow go together, and Peter’s command to “Repent and be baptized” might imply that both “repentance” and “baptism” should somehow go together. Either of those would place a fly in the ointment of baptizing babies with no idea whether or not they will ever believe or repent during their entire lives.

 

[Josiah]

Nope, that was not my point.

Then your quoting those Scriptures has no point (except perhaps to show Scripture does not teach what the Anabaptist dogmas here) and you've not yet offered anything to support these baptism inventions.

 

[Josiah]

There is no need to prove what is not recorded in history.

Then you admit your premise is baseless. You have NOTHING to support your claim that persons under the age of X were forbidden to be baptized as long as the Apostles lived.


You already proved the claim of the opening poster is wrong.

You already admitted that your claim that infant baptism never happened in the Early Church is wrong.

You have already documented that you have not one Scripture that teaches Anti-Paedobaptism (or Credobaptism).

Now you're admitting that your claim that those under the age of X were forbidden to be baptized when the Apostles were still alive is baseless.



.

 

[Albion]

I see no evidence to support your claim that Peter’s command in Acts was ‘permissive’ but not ‘obligatory’.

You are willing to see no evidence, you mean. So what I wrote remains true; and after writing that long post, you still have not engaged with it.

 

[MennoSota]

Then you admit your premise is baseless. You have NOTHING to support your claim that persons under the age of X were forbidden to be baptized as long as the Apostles lived.


You already proved the claim of the opening poster is wrong.

You already admitted that your claim that infant baptism never happened in the Early Church is wrong.

You have already documented that you have not one Scripture that teaches Anti-Paedobaptism (or Credobaptism).

Now you're admitting that your claim that those under the age of X were forbidden to be baptized when the Apostles were still alive is baseless.



.

Josiah, every verse on baptism supports belief before baptism. Therefore the premise that one believes before one is baptized is fully met.
Once again, it is you who puts a specified age for belief upon baptism.
Based upon the principle that one believes before one is baptized, do you advocate baptizing unbelieving atheists who do not know God or confess Him as Lord or do you advocate that unbelieving atheists should believe before they are baptized?