Water Baptism

[atpollard]

Then quote the commands: "Thou must baptize but ONLY if the person hath first celebrated their Xth birthday (and you won't be told what birthday that is.") The Anti-Paedbaptism dogma the synergistic Anabaptists invented that you echo.
Quote the command: "Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if they first hath proven that they hath accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior." The Credobaptism dogma the synergistic Anabaptist invented that you echo.
Quote the command: "Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if they first prove that they are among the few for whom Jesus died." The invention of Calvinist Anabaptists.
Quote the command: "Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if every cell of their body is fully covered by water." The "immersion only" dogma of the Anabaptists that you echo.
Quote the command: "Thou shalt baptize because it doth absolutely nothing which it why it is so important and stressed so much."
.

Troll it is then.
:taz:

 

[Arsenios]

The Holy Fire in which Christ Baptizes us is normally not visible, except each Pascha in the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem...

Here is a 1 minute video showing it not burning even a beard...

If you have a beard and have had it catch, you will know how easily and quickly it burns...

And OK, yes - just once - mine did accidentally catch fire...

For less that 1/2 a second, ok?

But the Holy Fire only comes forth each Pascha in Jerusalem...

It does not burn flesh for up to 5 minutes each yearly Pascha...

Then it becomes candle fire, and will burn you...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kZu87tyqJ4


Arsenios

 

[MoreCoffee]

I’d like to wait and see what Albion might have to say before I share my thoughts.

Troll it is then.
:taz:

I see
:smirk:

ooops wrong respondent.

carry on waiting. I'll wait too.

 

[Josiah]

Troll it is then.

You claim you want to discuss the command(s) in baptism in Scripture. Okay. That's fine.


The synergistic Anabaptists invented several in the late 16th Century. And you (and another) have been parroting them here. But you have not given the biblical commands that your dogma is all about. How can we discuss the biblical commands if you refuse to quote the ones you dogmatically insist upon?


"Thou must baptize but ONLY if the person hath first celebrated their Xth birthday (and you won't be told what birthday that is.") The Anti-Paedbaptism dogma the synergistic Anabaptists invented that you echo.
"Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if they first hath proven that they hath chosen Jesus Christ as their personal Savior." The Credobaptism dogma the synergistic Anabaptist invented that you echo.
"Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if they first prove that they are among the few for whom Jesus died." The invention of Calvinist Anabaptists.
"Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if every cell of their body is fully covered by water." The "immersion only" dogma of the Anabaptists that you echo.




atpollard, Instead of quoting Scripture to show Scripture gives these prohibitions that every Christian for 1500 years never saw, you instead rely on two absurd rules: That the word kai (and) mandates chronological sequence (which you refuse to substantiate) and that if there is an example of something that example is dogmatic, so since you can fine an example of Trump being installed as president, no other can be (again an apologetic you refuse to substantiate) all while insisting these prohibitions the radical anabaptist invented are stated in the Bible but not one person saw the verses for over 1500 years.




.

 

[atpollard]

You claim you want to discuss the command(s) in baptism in Scripture. Okay. That's fine.


The synergistic Anabaptists invented several in the late 16th Century. And you (and another) have been parroting them here. But you have not given the biblical commands that your dogma is all about. How can we discuss the biblical commands if you refuse to quote the ones you dogmatically insist upon?


"Thou must baptize but ONLY if the person hath first celebrated their Xth birthday (and you won't be told what birthday that is.") The Anti-Paedbaptism dogma the synergistic Anabaptists invented that you echo.
"Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if they first hath proven that they hath chosen Jesus Christ as their personal Savior." The Credobaptism dogma the synergistic Anabaptist invented that you echo.
"Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if they first prove that they are among the few for whom Jesus died." The invention of Calvinist Anabaptists.
"Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if every cell of their body is fully covered by water." The "immersion only" dogma of the Anabaptists that you echo.




atpollard, Instead of quoting Scripture to show Scripture gives these prohibitions that every Christian for 1500 years never saw, you instead rely on two absurd rules: That the word kai (and) mandates chronological sequence (which you refuse to substantiate) and that if there is an example of something that example is dogmatic, so since you can fine an example of Trump being installed as president, no other can be (again an apologetic you refuse to substantiate) all while insisting these prohibitions the radical anabaptist invented are stated in the Bible but not one person saw the verses for over 1500 years.
.

:taz:

There are no prohibitions, there are commands that you choose to ignore ...

"make disciples" and "baptizing" [Matthew 28:19]
Did you make them disciples when they were being baptized?

"Repent" and "be baptized" [Acts 2:38]
Did they repent before they were baptized?

"received his word were baptized" [Acts 2:41]
Did they receive his word before they were baptized?

"believed" and "baptized" [Acts 8:12]
Do those baptized believe?

"What prevents me from being baptized?” (asking) [Acts 8:36]
Have they asked to be baptized?

"praying" [Acts 9:11) and "baptized" [Acts 9:18]
Have those being baptized prayed?

"You know of Jesus" [Acts 10:38] and "Holy Spirit fell" and "listening to the message" [Acts 10:44] and "baptized" [Acts 10:48]
Do those being baptized know Jesus and have they listened to the message?

"the Lord opened her heart" and "respond to the things spoken" and "baptized" [Acts 16:14-15]
Has the Lord opened the heart of the person being baptized so they could respond to the things spoken?

"Believe" and "the word of the Lord" and "baptized" [Acts 16:31-33]
Do those being baptized believe the word of the Lord?

"believed" and "baptized" [Acts 18:8]
Do those being baptized already believe?

If you really want to discuss this, feel free to pick a verse and a command where you would like to start and we can discuss what scripture says and what our respective churches do. If you just want to ignore scripture and rant at me about 16th Century Anabaptists, then I will wash my hands of you as just a troll looking to provoke a response with no real desire to discuss anything.

If you really want to discuss this, feel free to pick a verse and a command where you would like to start and we can discuss what scripture says and what our respective churches do.

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=389]Albion[/MENTION]

OK, I'll engage your post as your post rather than your jumping in on a point I was making about some sloppy statistics.

Why are there more Christians who baptize infants?

Did you intend to respond to this?

(I only ask because I am delaying a response to MC while waiting to see if you had any thoughts.)

 

[Josiah]

If you really want to discuss this, feel free to pick a verse and a command where you would like to start and we can discuss what scripture says and what our respective churches do.

Just find a verse that states any of the dogmas the Anabaptists invented that you echo, any of the prohibitions, denials and limitations. Then we can discuss them: "Thou must baptize but ONLY if the person hath first celebrated their Xth birthday (and you won't be told what birthday that is.") The Anti-Paedbaptism dogma the synergistic Anabaptists invented that you echo. "Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if they first hath proven that they hath chosen Jesus Christ as their personal Savior." The Credobaptism dogma the synergistic Anabaptist invented that you echo. "Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if they first prove that they are among the few for whom Jesus died." The invention of Calvinist Anabaptists. "Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if every cell of their body is fully covered by water." The "immersion only" dogma of the Anabaptists that you echo.


None of the verses you quote remotely state any of those things. You instead seem to believe that when it comes to baptism (but nowhere else), the Greek word "kai" mandates chronological sequence although you've offered nothing to support this or why it only but always applies to baptism. And you seem to believe that only when it comes to baptism (and in no other situation) an example is dogmatic, so if the example is that someone is baptized in the Jordan River than it is a prohibition to be baptized anywhere else. Both are silly apologetics and you have made no effort to support either. They are both just evasions.... because like those Anabaptists who invented the dogmas you parrot, you also can't find a single verse that states these denials, prohibitation and limitations. It's a bit like condemning loving blonde haired people because the Great Commanding ("Love just as I first loved you") doesn't explicitely state, "And this includes blondes" and because there is no clear example in the Bible of any blonde haired person being loved (although no one can show that did not happen). Friend,"kai" does NOT mandate chronological order in Greek anymore than the word "and" does in English - it is the most indefinite connective word there is in koine Greek. And no, just because there is an example of something in the bible does NOT mandate that that must be done and nothing other can be done (a point I know you actually accept since you are posting on the internet and because I suspect you allow Gentiles to administer baptism, use a tank behind a curtain... and you administer Communion by passing around little plastic cups of grape juice and little cut up pieces of white bread to men, women and children, etc., etc., etc. The apologetics you insist on are silly (thus your unwillingness to support them) and ones you yourself don't believe or follow.

 

[Albion]

[MENTION=389]Albion[/MENTION]


Did you intend to respond to this?

(I only ask because I am delaying a response to MC while waiting to see if you had any thoughts.)

Hi. It does not look familiar, so I guess I missed it.

So, the question is why are there more Christians who baptize infants and young children than those which prohibit the practice.

The answer is that the weight of the Scriptural evidence (including the relevant historical and social references) justifies such baptisms, whereas the logic in denying such baptisms rests upon incorrect readings of that evidence. This is not a case, therefore, of different sides turning to different verses (as is the case with the faith vs works argument) but of the two using the same references but coming up with contrasting interpretations.

 

[Josiah]

Hi. It does not look familiar, so I guess I missed it.

So, the question is why are there more Christians who baptize infants and young children than those which prohibit the practice.

The answer is that the weight of the Scriptural evidence (including the relevant historical and social references) justifies such baptisms, whereas the logic in denying such baptisms rests upon incorrect readings of that evidence. This is not a case, therefore, of different sides turning to different verses (as is the case with the faith vs works argument) but of the two using the same references but coming up with contrasting interpretations.

Yeah.


The Anabaptists who invented this whole corpus of Baptismal prohibitions, denials and limitations in the late 16th Century didn't do so because of some verse(s) that not one Christian in over 1500 years ever noticed.... or even because of some different interpretations. These were radical synergists and THUS this COULD NOT be effectual or meaningful in terms of soteriology because one under a certain age CANNOT do his part in the salvation of himself. The Anabaptist's whole point was how can one under an unknown age believe, obey, do? Heck, sometimes they sleep through the whole thing! This MANDATES it is meaningless for those under that age. But the Bible stresses it! A lot! They saw it as an outward SIGN of something one did one the inside, a point Scripture never states and no Christian in history ever held. God need not and cannot save those who can't do their part.

Remember too, these were radicals.... they were revolutionaries (unlike Luther and Calvin who were reformers).... they HATED Catholics and Lutherans and Calvinists and Anglicans, who were apostate. What those apostate people did was not to be continued. Luther and Calvin embraced infant baptism and Luther and Calvin were heretics so infant baptism is not to be embraced. The Catholics did this for 1500 years and Catholics are heretics so....




.

 

[atpollard]

Just find a verse that states any of the dogmas the Anabaptists invented that you echo, any of the prohibitions, denials and limitations. Then we can discuss them: "Thou must baptize but ONLY if the person hath first celebrated their Xth birthday (and you won't be told what birthday that is.") The Anti-Paedbaptism dogma the synergistic Anabaptists invented that you echo. "Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if they first hath proven that they hath chosen Jesus Christ as their personal Savior." The Credobaptism dogma the synergistic Anabaptist invented that you echo. "Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if they first prove that they are among the few for whom Jesus died." The invention of Calvinist Anabaptists. "Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if every cell of their body is fully covered by water." The "immersion only" dogma of the Anabaptists that you echo.


None of the verses you quote remotely state any of those things. You instead seem to believe that when it comes to baptism (but nowhere else), the Greek word "kai" mandates chronological sequence although you've offered nothing to support this or why it only but always applies to baptism. And you seem to believe that only when it comes to baptism (and in no other situation) an example is dogmatic, so if the example is that someone is baptized in the Jordan River than it is a prohibition to be baptized anywhere else. Both are silly apologetics and you have made no effort to support either. They are both just evasions.... because like those Anabaptists who invented the dogmas you parrot, you also can't find a single verse that states these denials, prohibitation and limitations. It's a bit like condemning loving blonde haired people because the Great Commanding ("Love just as I first loved you") doesn't explicitely state, "And this includes blondes" and because there is no clear example in the Bible of any blonde haired person being loved (although no one can show that did not happen). Friend,"kai" does NOT mandate chronological order in Greek anymore than the word "and" does in English - it is the most indefinite connective word there is in koine Greek. And no, just because there is an example of something in the bible does NOT mandate that that must be done and nothing other can be done (a point I know you actually accept since you are posting on the internet and because I suspect you allow Gentiles to administer baptism, use a tank behind a curtain... and you administer Communion by passing around little plastic cups of grape juice and little cut up pieces of white bread to men, women and children, etc., etc., etc. The apologetics you insist on are silly (thus your unwillingness to support them) and ones you yourself don't believe or follow.

:taz:
If you really want to discuss this, feel free to pick a verse and a command where you would like to start and we can discuss what scripture says and what our respective churches do.

 

[Josiah]

atpollard,

Just find a verse that states any of the dogmas the Anabaptists invented that you echo, any of the prohibitions, denials and limitations. Then we can discuss them: "Thou must baptize but ONLY if the person hath first celebrated their Xth birthday (and you won't be told what birthday that is.") The Anti-Paedbaptism dogma the synergistic Anabaptists invented that you echo. "Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if they first hath proven that they hath chosen Jesus Christ as their personal Savior." The Credobaptism dogma the synergistic Anabaptist invented that you echo. "Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if they first prove that they are among the few for whom Jesus died." The invention of Calvinist Anabaptists. "Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if every cell of their body is fully covered by water." The "immersion only" dogma of the Anabaptists that you echo.

True, I can't find a verse that states, "And thou art to baptize males and females, those with blonde hair and red hair and brown hair and even no hair, and those fat and skinny and all in between" etc. But I don't have a dogma about blondes, you do about those under the age of X. I'm not the one dogmatically insisting the Bible states blondes are prohibited from baptism (you get my point). The Bible says to forgive..... just because it doesn't state "And this includes blonde haired persons" doesn't mean that ergo they are excluded (but red haired people are included). Where is this specific limitation on age (but not weight or skin color or nationality or IQ or hair color or height or niceness) stated specifically on Baptism, this no one under the age of X is allowed?


None of the verses you quote remotely state any of those things. You instead seem to believe that when it comes to baptism (but nowhere else), the Greek word "kai" mandates chronological sequence although you've offered nothing to support this or why it only but always applies to baptism. And you seem to believe that only when it comes to baptism (and in no other situation) an example is dogmatic, so if the example is that someone is baptized in the Jordan River than it is a prohibition to be baptized anywhere else. Both are silly apologetics and you have made no effort to support either. They are both just evasions.... because like those Anabaptists who invented the dogmas you parrot, you also can't find a single verse that states these denials, prohibitation and limitations. It's a bit like condemning loving blonde haired people because the Great Commanding ("Love just as I first loved you") doesn't explicitely state, "And this includes blondes" and because there is no clear example in the Bible of any blonde haired person being loved (although no one can show that did not happen). Friend,"kai" does NOT mandate chronological order in Greek anymore than the word "and" does in English - it is the most indefinite connective word there is in koine Greek. And no, just because there is an example of something in the bible does NOT mandate that that must be done and nothing other can be done (a point I know you actually accept since you are posting on the internet and because I suspect you allow Gentiles to administer baptism, use a tank behind a curtain... and you administer Communion by passing around little plastic cups of grape juice and little cut up pieces of white bread to men, women and children, etc., etc., etc. The apologetics you insist on are silly (thus your unwillingness to support them) and ones you yourself don't believe or follow.

 

[MennoSota]

atpollard,

Just find a verse that states any of the dogmas the Anabaptists invented that you echo, any of the prohibitions, denials and limitations. Then we can discuss them: "Thou must baptize but ONLY if the person hath first celebrated their Xth birthday (and you won't be told what birthday that is.") The Anti-Paedbaptism dogma the synergistic Anabaptists invented that you echo. "Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if they first hath proven that they hath chosen Jesus Christ as their personal Savior." The Credobaptism dogma the synergistic Anabaptist invented that you echo. "Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if they first prove that they are among the few for whom Jesus died." The invention of Calvinist Anabaptists. "Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if every cell of their body is fully covered by water." The "immersion only" dogma of the Anabaptists that you echo.

True, I can't find a verse that states, "And thou art to baptize males and females, those with blonde hair and red hair and brown hair and even no hair, and those fat and skinny and all in between" etc. But I don't have a dogma about blondes, you do about those under the age of X. I'm not the one dogmatically insisting the Bible states blondes are prohibited from baptism (you get my point). The Bible says to forgive..... just because it doesn't state "And this includes blonde haired persons" doesn't mean that ergo they are excluded (but red haired people are included). Where is this specific limitation on age (but not weight or skin color or nationality or IQ or hair color or height or niceness) stated specifically on Baptism, this no one under the age of X is allowed?


None of the verses you quote remotely state any of those things. You instead seem to believe that when it comes to baptism (but nowhere else), the Greek word "kai" mandates chronological sequence although you've offered nothing to support this or why it only but always applies to baptism. And you seem to believe that only when it comes to baptism (and in no other situation) an example is dogmatic, so if the example is that someone is baptized in the Jordan River than it is a prohibition to be baptized anywhere else. Both are silly apologetics and you have made no effort to support either. They are both just evasions.... because like those Anabaptists who invented the dogmas you parrot, you also can't find a single verse that states these denials, prohibitation and limitations. It's a bit like condemning loving blonde haired people because the Great Commanding ("Love just as I first loved you") doesn't explicitely state, "And this includes blondes" and because there is no clear example in the Bible of any blonde haired person being loved (although no one can show that did not happen). Friend,"kai" does NOT mandate chronological order in Greek anymore than the word "and" does in English - it is the most indefinite connective word there is in koine Greek. And no, just because there is an example of something in the bible does NOT mandate that that must be done and nothing other can be done (a point I know you actually accept since you are posting on the internet and because I suspect you allow Gentiles to administer baptism, use a tank behind a curtain... and you administer Communion by passing around little plastic cups of grape juice and little cut up pieces of white bread to men, women and children, etc., etc., etc. The apologetics you insist on are silly (thus your unwillingness to support them) and ones you yourself don't believe or follow.

Not one verse provided for atpollard to discuss with you. I was looking forward to seeing the discussion of the various verses surrounding water baptism. Too bad you couldn't honor atpollard's request.

 

[Josiah]

Not one verse provided for atpollard to discuss with you.

Because neither he nor you has one. None of the prohibitions and denials that the synergistic Anabaptists invented in the late 16th Century are in Scripture (they were at least honest enough to admit it).

We are told to baptize (the Salvation Army disagrees with this but not the rest of us). And MISSING (entirely) are any prohibitions from baptizing fat people or blonde haired people or smart people or American people or young people or even bald people - no one has found those prohibitions, no one has found any of the prohibitions that are the Anabaptist dogma you keep echoing.

Two apologetics are given since no Scripture is.

1. The koine Greek word "kai" mandates chronological sequence but ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY when addressing baptism and nowhere else. No substantiation for this has been offered.
2. We can't do anything unless there is an example of such given in the Bible. An argument all here repudiate and don't follow (they couldn't post on the Internet if they did; probably 90% plus of what their church does would be forbidden).


If either of you post a verse that contains one of these prohibitions, persons we are forbidden to baptize, give it. Then we can discuss. Is any such verse forthcoming?


.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

:taz:



If you really want to discuss this, feel free to pick a verse and a command where you would like to start and we can discuss what scripture says and what our respective churches do.

Just find a verse that states any of the dogmas the Anabaptists invented that you echo, any of the prohibitions, denials and limitations. Then we can discuss them: "Thou must baptize but ONLY if the person hath first celebrated their Xth birthday (and you won't be told what birthday that is.") The Anti-Paedbaptism dogma the synergistic Anabaptists invented that you echo. "Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if they first hath proven that they hath chosen Jesus Christ as their personal Savior." The Credobaptism dogma the synergistic Anabaptist invented that you echo. "Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if they first prove that they are among the few for whom Jesus died." The invention of Calvinist Anabaptists. "Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if every cell of their body is fully covered by water." The "immersion only" dogma of the Anabaptists that you echo.


None of the verses you quote remotely state any of those things. You instead seem to believe that when it comes to baptism (but nowhere else), the Greek word "kai" mandates chronological sequence although you've offered nothing to support this or why it only but always applies to baptism. And you seem to believe that only when it comes to baptism (and in no other situation) an example is dogmatic, so if the example is that someone is baptized in the Jordan River than it is a prohibition to be baptized anywhere else. Both are silly apologetics and you have made no effort to support either. They are both just evasions.... because like those Anabaptists who invented the dogmas you parrot, you also can't find a single verse that states these denials, prohibitation and limitations. It's a bit like condemning loving blonde haired people because the Great Commanding ("Love just as I first loved you") doesn't explicitely state, "And this includes blondes" and because there is no clear example in the Bible of any blonde haired person being loved (although no one can show that did not happen). Friend,"kai" does NOT mandate chronological order in Greek anymore than the word "and" does in English - it is the most indefinite connective word there is in koine Greek. And no, just because there is an example of something in the bible does NOT mandate that that must be done and nothing other can be done (a point I know you actually accept since you are posting on the internet and because I suspect you allow Gentiles to administer baptism, use a tank behind a curtain... and you administer Communion by passing around little plastic cups of grape juice and little cut up pieces of white bread to men, women and children, etc., etc., etc. The apologetics you insist on are silly (thus your unwillingness to support them) and ones you yourself don't believe or follow.

I don't think this ^^^^ answers the question. atpollard posted some verses for you (Josiah) and asked for a response. I'd like to see that as well (understanding, however, my already solid 'stance' on the baptism question)

 

[MennoSota]

Because neither he nor you has one. None of the prohibitions and denials that the synergistic Anabaptists invented in the late 16th Century are in Scripture (they were at least honest enough to admit it).

We are told to baptize (the Salvation Army disagrees with this but not the rest of us). And MISSING (entirely) are any prohibitions from baptizing fat people or blonde haired people or smart people or American people or young people or even bald people - no one has found those prohibitions, no one has found any of the prohibitions that are the Anabaptist dogma you keep echoing.

Two apologetics are given since no Scripture is.

1. The koine Greek word "kai" mandates chronological sequence but ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY when addressing baptism and nowhere else. No substantiation for this has been offered.
2. We can't do anything unless there is an example of such given in the Bible. An argument all here repudiate and don't follow (they couldn't post on the Internet if they did; probably 90% plus of what their church does would be forbidden).


If either of you post a verse that contains one of these prohibitions, persons we are forbidden to baptize, give it. Then we can discuss. Is any such verse forthcoming?


.

Are there no verses on baptism found anywhere in the Bible? Surely you jest.

 

[Josiah]

Because neither he nor you has one. None of the prohibitions and denials that the synergistic Anabaptists invented in the late 16th Century are in Scripture (they were at least honest enough to admit it).

We are told to baptize (the Salvation Army disagrees with this but not the rest of us). And MISSING (entirely) are any prohibitions from baptizing fat people or blonde haired people or smart people or American people or young people or even bald people - no one has found those prohibitions, no one has found any of the prohibitions that are the Anabaptist dogma you keep echoing.

Two apologetics are given since no Scripture is.

1. The koine Greek word "kai" mandates chronological sequence but ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY when addressing baptism and nowhere else. No substantiation for this has been offered.
2. We can't do anything unless there is an example of such given in the Bible. An argument all here repudiate and don't follow (they couldn't post on the Internet if they did; probably 90% plus of what their church does would be forbidden).


If either of you post a verse that contains one of these prohibitions, persons we are forbidden to baptize, give it. Then we can discuss. Is any such verse forthcoming?



.

Are there no verses on baptism found anywhere in the Bible?

Not about the prohibitions, denials and mandates that are the dogma you echo, the inventions of those radical synerigistic Anabaptists that you parrot. I'm fairly confident that if any existed, some Anabaptist in over 300 years would have found such.


There is the command to Baptize, that's not debated by over 2.1 billion Christians (only by the 1.6 million in the Salvation Army). You accept that Baptism is something to be done, you just insist that Scripture states we are forbidden to do so 1) Unless and until the recipient has first celebrated their Xth birthday (and we don't know which one that is) - the Anti-Paedobaptism invention of the Anabaptists you parrot, 2) Unless and until the recipient has [proven that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior - the Credobaptism invention of the Anabaptists that you parrot, 3) Unless and until the recipient first has proven that they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died and 4) Unless the recipient is entirely immersed under water - the Immersion dogma of the Anabaptists that you parrot. That's what is debated, that's what no one prior these Anabaptists believed, that's what is the dogma you promote.

 

[atpollard]

I have some spare time, so I will meet you part way and answer ONE of your questions (with scripture as requested) then wait for you to respond to mine ...

How can we discuss the biblical commands if you refuse to quote the ones you dogmatically insist upon?
"Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if every cell of their body is fully covered by water." The "immersion only" dogma of the Anabaptists that you echo.

Requested Scriptures:
[Mat 3:6, 11, 13-14, 16 MGNT] 6 καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταμῷ ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ ἐξομολογούμενοι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν ... 11 ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν ὁ δὲ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἰσχυρότερός μού ἐστιν οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί ... 13 τότε παραγίνεται ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰορδάνην πρὸς τὸν Ἰωάννην τοῦ βαπτισθῆναι ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ 14 ὁ δὲ Ἰωάννης διεκώλυεν αὐτὸν λέγων ἐγὼ χρείαν ἔχω ὑπὸ σοῦ βαπτισθῆναι καὶ σὺ ἔρχῃ πρός με ... 16 βαπτισθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εὐθὺς ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος καὶ ἰδοὺ ἠνεῴχθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ οὐρανοί καὶ εἶδεν τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ καταβαῖνον ὡσεὶ περιστερὰν καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐπ’ αὐτόν
[Mat 28:19 MGNT] 19 πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος
[Mar 1:4-5, 8-9 MGNT] 4 ἐγένετο Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ κηρύσσων βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν 5 καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο πρὸς αὐτὸν πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα καὶ οἱ Ἱεροσολυμῖται πάντες καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταμῷ ἐξομολογούμενοι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν ... 8 ἐγὼ ἐβάπτισα ὑμᾶς ὕδατι αὐτὸς δὲ βαπτίσει ὑμᾶς ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ 9 καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου
[Mar 6:14, 24 MGNT] 14 καὶ ἤκουσεν ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἡρῴδης φανερὸν γὰρ ἐγένετο τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔλεγον ὅτι Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτίζων ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐνεργοῦσιν αἱ δυνάμεις ἐν αὐτῷ ... 24 καὶ ἐξελθοῦσα εἶπεν τῇ μητρὶ αὐτῆς τί αἰτήσωμαι ἡ δὲ εἶπεν τὴν κεφαλὴν Ἰωάννου τοῦ βαπτίζοντος
[Mar 7:4 MGNT] 4 καὶ ἀπ’ ἀγορᾶς ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων καὶ κλινῶν
[Mar 10:38-39 MGNT] 38 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς οὐκ οἴδατε τί αἰτεῖσθε δύνασθε πιεῖν τὸ ποτήριον ὃ ἐγὼ πίνω ἢ τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθῆναι 39 οἱ δὲ εἶπαν αὐτῷ δυνάμεθα ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς τὸ ποτήριον ὃ ἐγὼ πίνω πίεσθε καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθήσεσθε
[Mar 16:16 MGNT] 16 ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς σωθήσεται ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται
[Luk 3:7, 12, 16, 21 MGNT] 7 ἔλεγεν οὖν τοῖς ἐκπορευομένοις ὄχλοις βαπτισθῆναι ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν τίς ὑπέδειξεν ὑμῖν φυγεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς ... 12 ἦλθον δὲ καὶ τελῶναι βαπτισθῆναι καὶ εἶπαν πρὸς αὐτόν διδάσκαλε τί ποιήσωμεν ... 16 ἀπεκρίνατο λέγων πᾶσιν ὁ Ἰωάννης ἐγὼ μὲν ὕδατι βαπτίζω ὑμᾶς ἔρχεται δὲ ὁ ἰσχυρότερός μου οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς λῦσαι τὸν ἱμάντα τῶν ὑποδημάτων αὐτοῦ αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί ... 21 ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ βαπτισθῆναι ἅπαντα τὸν λαὸν καὶ Ἰησοῦ βαπτισθέντος καὶ προσευχομένου ἀνεῳχθῆναι τὸν οὐρανὸν
[Luk 7:29-30 MGNT] 29 καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἀκούσας καὶ οἱ τελῶναι ἐδικαίωσαν τὸν θεόν βαπτισθέντες τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου 30 οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ οἱ νομικοὶ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἠθέτησαν εἰς ἑαυτούς μὴ βαπτισθέντες ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ
[Luk 11:38 MGNT] 38 ὁ δὲ Φαρισαῖος ἰδὼν ἐθαύμασεν ὅτι οὐ πρῶτον ἐβαπτίσθη πρὸ τοῦ ἀρίστου
[Luk 12:50 MGNT] 50 βάπτισμα δὲ ἔχω βαπτισθῆναι καὶ πῶς συνέχομαι ἕως ὅτου τελεσθῇ
[Jhn 1:25-26, 28, 31, 33 MGNT] 25 καὶ ἠρώτησαν αὐτὸν καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ τί οὖν βαπτίζεις εἰ σὺ οὐκ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς οὐδὲ Ἠλίας οὐδὲ ὁ προφήτης 26 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰωάννης λέγων ἐγὼ βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι μέσος ὑμῶν ἕστηκεν ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε ... 28 ταῦτα ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐγένετο πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου ὅπου ἦν ὁ Ἰωάννης βαπτίζων ... 31 κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν ἀλλ’ ἵνα φανερωθῇ τῷ Ἰσραὴλ διὰ τοῦτο ἦλθον ἐγὼ ἐν ὕδατι βαπτίζων ... 33 κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν ἀλλ’ ὁ πέμψας με βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν ἐφ’ ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον καὶ μένον ἐπ’ αὐτόν οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ
[Jhn 3:22-23, 26 MGNT] 22 μετὰ ταῦτα ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν γῆν καὶ ἐκεῖ διέτριβεν μετ’ αὐτῶν καὶ ἐβάπτιζεν 23 ἦν δὲ καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης βαπτίζων ἐν Αἰνὼν ἐγγὺς τοῦ Σαλείμ ὅτι ὕδατα πολλὰ ἦν ἐκεῖ καὶ παρεγίνοντο καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο ... 26 καὶ ἦλθον πρὸς τὸν Ἰωάννην καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ ῥαββί ὃς ἦν μετὰ σοῦ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου ᾧ σὺ μεμαρτύρηκας ἴδε οὗτος βαπτίζει καὶ πάντες ἔρχονται πρὸς αὐτόν
[Jhn 4:1-2 MGNT] 1 ὡς οὖν ἔγνω ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι ἤκουσαν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ὅτι Ἰησοῦς πλείονας μαθητὰς ποιεῖ καὶ βαπτίζει ἢ Ἰωάννης 2 καίτοιγε Ἰησοῦς αὐτὸς οὐκ ἐβάπτιζεν ἀλλ’ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ
[Jhn 10:40 MGNT] 40 καὶ ἀπῆλθεν πάλιν πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου εἰς τὸν τόπον ὅπου ἦν Ἰωάννης τὸ πρῶτον βαπτίζων καὶ ἔμεινεν ἐκεῖ
[Act 1:5 MGNT] 5 ὅτι Ἰωάννης μὲν ἐβάπτισεν ὕδατι ὑμεῖς δὲ ἐν πνεύματι βαπτισθήσεσθε ἁγίῳ οὐ μετὰ πολλὰς ταύτας ἡμέρας
[Act 2:38, 41 MGNT] 38 Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς μετανοήσατε φησίν καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ... 41 οἱ μὲν οὖν ἀποδεξάμενοι τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθησαν καὶ προσετέθησαν ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ψυχαὶ ὡσεὶ τρισχίλιαι
[Act 8:12-13, 16, 36, 38 MGNT] 12 ὅτε δὲ ἐπίστευσαν τῷ Φιλίππῳ εὐαγγελιζομένῳ περὶ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐβαπτίζοντο ἄνδρες τε καὶ γυναῖκες 13 ὁ δὲ Σίμων καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπίστευσεν καὶ βαπτισθεὶς ἦν προσκαρτερῶν τῷ Φιλίππῳ θεωρῶν τε σημεῖα καὶ δυνάμεις μεγάλας γινομένας ἐξίστατο ... 16 οὐδέπω γὰρ ἦν ἐπ’ οὐδενὶ αὐτῶν ἐπιπεπτωκός μόνον δὲ βεβαπτισμένοι ὑπῆρχον εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ ... 36 ὡς δὲ ἐπορεύοντο κατὰ τὴν ὁδόν ἦλθον ἐπί τι ὕδωρ καί φησιν ὁ εὐνοῦχος ἰδοὺ ὕδωρ τί κωλύει με βαπτισθῆναι ... 38 καὶ ἐκέλευσεν στῆναι τὸ ἅρμα καὶ κατέβησαν ἀμφότεροι εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ ὅ τε Φίλιππος καὶ ὁ εὐνοῦχος καὶ ἐβάπτισεν αὐτόν
[Act 9:18 MGNT] 18 καὶ εὐθέως ἀπέπεσαν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ὡς λεπίδες ἀνέβλεψέν τε καὶ ἀναστὰς ἐβαπτίσθη
[Act 10:47-48 MGNT] 47 μήτι τὸ ὕδωρ δύναται κωλῦσαί τις τοῦ μὴ βαπτισθῆναι τούτους οἵτινες τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔλαβον ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς 48 προσέταξεν δὲ αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ βαπτισθῆναι τότε ἠρώτησαν αὐτὸν ἐπιμεῖναι ἡμέρας τινάς
[Act 11:16 MGNT] 16 ἐμνήσθην δὲ τοῦ ῥήματος τοῦ κυρίου ὡς ἔλεγεν Ἰωάννης μὲν ἐβάπτισεν ὕδατι ὑμεῖς δὲ βαπτισθήσεσθε ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ
[Act 16:15, 33 MGNT] 15 ὡς δὲ ἐβαπτίσθη καὶ ὁ οἶκος αὐτῆς παρεκάλεσεν λέγουσα εἰ κεκρίκατέ με πιστὴν τῷ κυρίῳ εἶναι εἰσελθόντες εἰς τὸν οἶκόν μου μένετε καὶ παρεβιάσατο ἡμᾶς ... 33 καὶ παραλαβὼν αὐτοὺς ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ τῆς νυκτὸς ἔλουσεν ἀπὸ τῶν πληγῶν καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ αὐτοῦ πάντες παραχρῆμα
[Act 18:8 MGNT] 8 Κρίσπος δὲ ὁ ἀρχισυνάγωγος ἐπίστευσεν τῷ κυρίῳ σὺν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν Κορινθίων ἀκούοντες ἐπίστευον καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο
... Here you see the Greek word for whelmed (immersed) means immersed and is used in all of these verses.


There is a Greek word for ‘sprinkle’ (ῥαντισμός) and it appears in these verses:
[Heb 12:24 MGNT] 24 καὶ διαθήκης νέας μεσίτῃ Ἰησοῦ καὶ αἵματι ῥαντισμοῦ κρεῖττον λαλοῦντι παρὰ τὸν Ἅβελ
[1Pe 1:2 MGNT] 2 κατὰ πρόγνωσιν θεοῦ πατρός ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη
... however, I must assume that Lutherans do not sprinkle infants with the blood of Christ, so they do not apply.


There is also a Greek word for ‘dip’ (βάπτω) and it appears in these verses:
[Luk 16:24 MGNT] 24 καὶ αὐτὸς φωνήσας εἶπεν πάτερ Ἀβραάμ ἐλέησόν με καὶ πέμψον Λάζαρον ἵνα βάψῃ τὸ ἄκρον τοῦ δακτύλου αὐτοῦ ὕδατος καὶ καταψύξῃ τὴν γλῶσσάν μου ὅτι ὀδυνῶμαι ἐν τῇ φλογὶ ταύτῃ
[Jhn 13:26 MGNT] 26 ἀποκρίνεται ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν ᾧ ἐγὼ βάψω τὸ ψωμίον καὶ δώσω αὐτῷ βάψας οὖν τὸ ψωμίον λαμβάνει καὶ δίδωσιν Ἰούδᾳ Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτου
[Rev 19:13 MGNT] 13 καὶ περιβεβλημένος ἱμάτιον βεβαμμένον αἵματι καὶ κέκληται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ
... however, even the harshest proponent of Double Predestination would not argue that Lutheran infants are already in fiery torment begging for a finger dipped in water to cool their tongue. Also, even the most radical Universalist would not think that the Lutheran infants are Jesus from Revelation with his robe dipped in blood. So these verses do not apply.


No, the simple fact of the matter is that the Greek word “whelm or submerge” (βαπτίζω) means to immerse.
(You should really drop that one from your list, asking people to prove that ‘immerse’ means ‘immerse’ makes you seem both silly and unreasonable. It is your weakest argument.)



NOW IT IS MY TURN:
[Act 18:8 NASB] 8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.

So Crispus believed and was baptized.
Do Lutheran infants believe?

The household of Crispus believed and was baptized.
Do all the members of Lutheran households believe?

Many Corinthians first heard, then believed and were baptized.
Have Lutheran infants heard?
Have Lutheran infants BELIEVED and gotten Baptized?


Why are Lutherans baptizing people (of any age) who have not heard and not believed?
Why are you not following the example of the Household of Crispus and the Church at Corinth?

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]

I have some spare time, so I will meet you part way and answer ONE of your questions (with scripture as requested) then wait for you to respond to mine

Nope.


While some Baptists try to make this case, it simply isn't true. And it doesn't even require you know Greek to realize this. In Greece, where they have been speaking Greek since before Baptism was instituted, they have never baptized by full immersion. If the Greek word itself mandated full immersion, don't you think the Greeks would know this? Don't you think ANYONE - anyone at all, even one person - -prior to these wackedoddle Anabaptists (none of whom knew Greek or spoke Greek) would have known the word itself mandates full immersion? Now, it's true, the EOC typically dip the BABY but there is no full immersion. Never has been. Not by anyone who knows and speaks Greek. Not in 2000 years.

The Didache, written around 100 AD in Greek by an author who know and spoke Greek, states that we can baptize by pouring. Now, why doesn't he know that the word MANDATES the exclusive mode of fully immersion, but some German Anabaptists, 1500 years later, who didn't know or speak Greek, suddenly, after no one else knew this for 1500 years, they suddenly know the meaning of the word? Consider too Mark 10:38-39, Luke 12:50, Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Romans 6:3-4, Ezekiel 36:25-27 (OT equal) and many more; obviously the term does not mean "to fully immerse in and under water." Surely Mark and Luke and Matthew knew the meaning of the word (probably better than the German speaking Anabaptists in the late 16th Century).

NOW IT IS MY TURN Act 18 :8 NASB 8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized. So Crispus believed and was baptized. Do Lutheran infants believe?

God is able to give them faith. Jesus said so and I believe Him. See Matthew 18:6, etc., etc. Note the word "mikron" literally means "tiny ones" and is used in Greek to refer to unborn children through toddlers. The word does not mean "one over the age of X." Of course, God gave faith to John the Baptists while he was still in his mother's womb. God can do that. Lutherans hold to a big and capable and soverign God, not to the limitations of those radically synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century.


But of course, this verse doesn't say that we are forbidden to baptize under the nondisclosed age of X, or that we are forbidden to baptize any unless they first prove that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior or that we are forbidden to baptize any unless they first prove they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died.

Do all the members of Lutheran households believe?

We don't believe that we must ASSUME anything..... that all members of all households are over the never-disclosed age of X, that all members of all households have proven that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, that all members of all households have proven that they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died. We don't assume that (dogmatically or otherwise). In fact, I know it to be false. In my household, we have a one-year-old, and I suspect (but cannot know) that he is under the never-disclosed age of X.

Have Lutheran infants BELIEVED and gotten Baptized?

Remember: the koine Greek word "and" is the most general connective word there is. "Kai" does not mandate chronological sequence than the word "and" does in English. I got up this morning and went to the bathroom and made a pot of coffee. Absolutely true, but I didn't do them in that chronological order. It would be silly to invent a dogma that we are forbidden to make coffee before we go to the bathroom based on that sentence

Oh and my son heard long before he was born, just for your knowledge. Babies in the womb can hear. He went to church with us. We sang "Jesus songs" to him. God gave faith to John the Baptist before he was born.... I reject that God is too weak, too limited, too inept to give faith to whom He chooses; Lutherans accept the sovereignty of God and reject inventions that deny that.

Yes, the Credobaptism dogma was invented by these radically synergistic Anabaptists NOT because they quoted any Scripture but because their foundational belief was that each must CHOOSE Jesus as their personal Savior and this creates faith in themselves; each must DO big things before God can do anything for them; so you echo their doctrine: "Babies can't....." Monergists look at this differently, "God can..."




Now, where are these prohibitions, denials and mandates that are the dogma you echo stated in Scripture?

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath reached their Xth birthday (and you won't be told what birthday that is)?"

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath proven they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior?"

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath proven they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died?"




.

.

 

[Albion]

NOW IT IS MY TURN:
[Act 18:8 NASB] 8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.

So Crispus believed and was baptized.

All you are doing here, my friend, is verifying Josiah’s point. The New Testament does not have to identify, by name, every person in the world who is eligible for baptism in order for the sacrament to be administered. If I were so, I would ask "Where in the NT does your name appear?"...and then I would say "Aha! That's proof positive that you are not to be baptized."

But no. The Lord sent his Apostles out into the world to baptize all nations. To be more specific, here you cite Crispus who was baptized. But if Crispus was baptized, what does that say about everyone else? It is ridiculous to think that they are excluded BECAUSE THIS EXAMPLE (or the Eunuch, for another example, or some others) is conveyed to us.

The fact is that those who seem capable of making a profession of faith are baptized (and I remind you that Baptistic churches baptize all sorts of people who really are NOT capable of making a decision for Christ even if they recite some line that has been taught to them. Try defending that!); but nothing says that those who are too young to make that commitment are--for that reason--to be refused baptism. But you already know that.

 

[MoreCoffee]

NOW IT IS MY TURN:
[Act 18:8 NASB] 8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.

So Crispus believed and was baptized.
Do Lutheran infants believe?

The household of Crispus believed and was baptized.
Do all the members of Lutheran households believe?

Many Corinthians first heard, then believed and were baptized.
Have Lutheran infants heard?
Have Lutheran infants BELIEVED and gotten Baptized?


Why are Lutherans baptizing people (of any age) who have not heard and not believed?
Why are you not following the example of the Household of Crispus and the Church at Corinth?

I cannot speak for Lutheran babies nor for Lutheran adults but I will offer this observation regarding Catholic infants.

Baptised Catholic infants hear and believe with both hearing and faith appropriate to their age and as they grow in maturity they hear and believe with hearing and faith appropriate to their age until they reach sufficient maturity to choose between receiving what they hear and believe and decide if is credible or not on their own cognisance.