Water Baptism

[MennoSota]

.... not for a monergist, not for one who holds that JESUS is the Savior, not for one who holds that God is not impotent to save some because of their age or whatever. We're believing, not telling God what He can't do.

I'm often reminded that your theology of Baptism comes hook, line and sinker from the Anabaptists, who invented it in the late 16th Century. They did so for one reason: they were radical synergists and they re-invented Baptism to fit with that. I will never ceased to be amazed with how a Calvinist can also be an Anabaptist; I often wonder if you actually READ your own statements here

You certainly can reject that Baptism is a Means of Grace; I disagree with you but I can understand your denial, but your framing all this in pure echo of the Anabaptists and their radical synergism strikes me a very odd.


When you present the Gospel to dead people, do you "HOPE" (funny word you use!) that God will give faith? Do you forbid yourself from doing so because you don't know if Jesus died for them and desires them to have faith (and might be wasting your time)? Do you forbid yourself from doing it unless they are over the never-disclosed age of X? Do you forbid yourself because to do so some human work would be involved (you telling them)? Where is this idea that God is rendered impotent based on age, based on is ministry is involved? Again, I 'get' your denial of Baptism, it's the REASONS you give (taken from the Anabaptist handbook) that shock and dismay me. What a limited God! I SUSPECT you present the Gospel because God tells us to, because you accept that God can use it, because God gives faith through it (although perhaps not always). Even though they may not have yet celebrated their Xth birthday .... and you can't prove Jesus died for them.... and they may not ALREADY believe and thus you don't need to evangelize them.





Accept that there is no such command. We are told to baptize and teach. We are commanded to celebrate Communion. And there are promises attached to such (forgiveness - which is salvation, "baptism now saves you", etc., etc., etc.). Yeah, as you do in much of your radical Anabaptist and Calvinist views, you like to spin verses 180 degrees so that they mean the exact opposite of what they say, you direct us instead to verses you can't find (such as "Thou canst baptize any under the age of X and you canst baptize any unless they publically prove they are among the unnamed persons for whom Jesus died and first give public proof of their faith in Jesus" and "Baptism does nothing" "And Communion is ONLY a rememberance and NOT for THIS is for the forgiveness of sins").


IF there was a divine command to shoot a canon..... IF the early church placed ENORMOUS emphasis on it (as it did Baptism and Communion), if promises were attached - yeah, I'd probably accept that. I don't limit what God can do or for whom.


Yes, synergists are going to argue that one must come to life and have certain attributes before God is released from His impotence and can bless. And you echo that Anabaptist argument. But consider Lazarus. Stinking to high heaven in that tomb. DEAD. Could Jesus GIVE him life? Seems so..... Why your Anabaptist synergism about how God cannot do anything for the dead? Your contradictions with your monergism is amazing.


No, the water does nothing..... it is but a "tool in the hands of the Carpenter" BUT it's in the hands of the CARPENTER! He can do great things! Yeah, He gave sight to a man with a mudball! Don't be so quick to tell Him what He cannot do. You may say you feel there is insufficent reason to believe He uses Baptism (and AGAIN, I can understand that, although I very much disagree) but your apologetic, your synergist limitations and restrictions and the mandates you put on God, the severe limitations to His sovereignty... well....







Freind, it's the opposite.

You have presented NOTHING from the Bible to show God cannot bless the dead, cannot give life to the dead.... you have presented NOTHING that states we are forbidden to baptize those under the age of X (Anti-Paedobaptism), NOTHING that we are forbidden to administer baptism to one who has not publicly proven he/she is among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died, NOTHING that states we are forbidden to baptize those who do not first give public proof of their faith, NOTHING that states we are forbidden to baptize unless every cell of their body is immersed under water. You have shouting a long list of Anabaptist prohibitions - and not one with any Scripture that remotely states what the Anabaptists and you do






That's my suggestion to you. Stop spinning Scriptures 180 degrees so that they mean the exact opposite of what they say..... stop saying "Scripture says" and then proving you can't find that verse (and we both know why).... stop telling God how small He is, how limited is His sovereigty, stop parroting verbatim the synergistic apologetics of the Anabaptists who invented your dogma. Read. Accept. Believe. End the perfect parroting of the Anabaptist (and conflicting Calvinist) tradition.


Tossing out the phrase "well...God could...if He wished" as your argument is just silly.

[/QUOTE]We are told:
Matthew 28:19-20
Go
therefore and
make
disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
teaching
them to observe all that I have commanded you.
And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Notice...no mention of baptizing the unsaved with the hopes that a baptism will invoke God to graciously save. Not in these verses. Not anywhere in scripture.
But, let's be honest. You don't care about scripture being your guide (no Sola scriptura for you). You care about your church tradition and selecting sentences that you can use to prop up tradition.
Those who show you to be wrong, you just shove into a category in church history and summarily dismiss it. The Bible is entirely secondary to you. No Sola scriptura for you. You make bold claims about the Solas, but when push comes to shove you abandon them all to lean upon your church tradition as your gospel.
Josiah, I wish you had the courage to truly embrace sola scriptura. It would be welcome. Sadly, I don't see you having such courage.

 

[Josiah]

We are told:
Matthew 28:19-20
Go
therefore and
make
disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
teaching
them to observe all that I have commanded you.
And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Every word literally accepted.

Notice...no mention of....

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any under the age of X (and you won't be told what that age is)"

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless they hath publicly proven they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died."

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless they first hath publicly proven their faith in Jesus as their Savior."

"Thou are forbidden to baptize any unless every cell of their body is entirely covered by water."


Every aspect of your Anabaptist dogma on this is missing. Every bit of it.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Every word literally accepted.





"Thou art forbidden to baptize any under the age of X (and you won't be told what that age is)"

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless they hath publicly proven they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died."

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless they first hath publicly proven their faith in Jesus as their Savior."

"Thou are forbidden to baptize any unless every cell of their body is entirely covered by water."


Every aspect of your Anabaptist dogma on this is missing. Every bit of it.




.

You accept scripture and then insist on baptizing anybody and everybody without discernment on the hopes you can have God save someone by your nondiscernment. Josiah, your approach is foolish and biblically unsound. Since you have no scripture your view is illegitimate.

 

[Josiah]

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any under the age of X (and you won't be told what that age is)"

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless they hath publicly proven they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died."

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless they first hath publicly proven their faith in Jesus as their Savior."

"Thou are forbidden to baptize any unless every cell of their body is entirely covered by water."


Where does the Bible state your Anabaptist position on Baptism? Where are these verses?


.

You accept scripture

Yes. It says go and baptize. I can't find the verses you insist teach your long list of Anabaptist prohibitions. Evidently, you can't either.


"Thou art forbidden to baptize any under the age of X (and you won't be told what that age is)"

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless they hath publicly proven they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died."

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless they first hath publicly proven their faith in Jesus as their Savior."

"Thou are forbidden to baptize any unless every cell of their body is entirely covered by water."

without discernment on the hopes you can have God save someone by your nondiscernment.

Your radical synergism to side with the Anabaptists on this sure conflicts with the monergism to side with Calvin on justification..... Your echoing the Anabaptist point that God can't save unless the person is or does X,Y,Z is amazing coming from one who so powerfully contradicts that.

you have no scripture.

Waiting (still) for the Scriptures to support the Anabaptist prohibitions and denials of monergism and God's soverignty....


"Thou art forbidden to baptize any under the age of X (and you won't be told what that age is)"

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless they hath publicly proven they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died."

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless they first hath publicly proven their faith in Jesus as their Savior."

"Thou are forbidden to baptize any unless every cell of their body is entirely covered by water."




.

 

[MennoSota]

Yes. It says go and baptize. I can't find the verses you insist teach your long list of Anabaptist prohibitions. Evidently, you can't either.


"Thou art forbidden to baptize any under the age of X (and you won't be told what that age is)"

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless they hath publicly proven they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died."

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless they first hath publicly proven their faith in Jesus as their Savior."

"Thou are forbidden to baptize any unless every cell of their body is entirely covered by water."







Your radical synergism to side with the Anabaptists on this sure conflicts with the monergism to side with Calvin on justification..... Your echoing the Anabaptist point that God can't save unless the person is or does X,Y,Z is amazing coming from one who so powerfully contradicts that.






Waiting (still) for the Scriptures to support the Anabaptist prohibitions and denials of monergism and God's soverignty....


"Thou art forbidden to baptize any under the age of X (and you won't be told what that age is)"

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless they hath publicly proven they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died."

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless they first hath publicly proven their faith in Jesus as their Savior."

"Thou are forbidden to baptize any unless every cell of their body is entirely covered by water."




.

Josiah, you are the one adding all that stuff. You seem to still be looking for prooftexts. Why?
Let scripture teach and everything that is not taught in scripture be scrapped. (Goodbye infant baptism)

 

[Josiah]

let everything that is not taught in scripture be scrapped.

Okay. Then should we scrap the list of prohibitions and doubts the Anabaptists invented that you have been parroting? Where are the following things stated?



"Thou art forbidden to baptize any under the age of X (and you won't be told what that age is)" Anti-Paedobaptism

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless they hath publicly proven they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died."

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless they first hath publicly proven their faith in Jesus as their Savior." Credobaptism

"Thou are forbidden to baptize any unless every cell of their body is entirely covered by water." Immersion mandate




.

 

[MennoSota]

Okay. Then should we scrap the list of prohibitions and doubts the Anabaptists invented that you have been parroting? Where are the following things stated?



"Thou art forbidden to baptize any under the age of X (and you won't be told what that age is)" Anti-Paedobaptism

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless they hath publicly proven they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died."

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless they first hath publicly proven their faith in Jesus as their Savior." Credobaptism

"Thou are forbidden to baptize any unless every cell of their body is entirely covered by water." Immersion mandate




.

...because the Bible promotes baptizing anybody and everybody at any time and any place?
My goodness, Josiah, you hold massive contradictions. Good luck with your dogmas.

 

[Josiah]

...because the Bible promotes baptizing anybody and everybody at any time and any place?

The Bible says to baptize. I can't find the long list of prohibitions, limitations on God and denials that the Anabaptists invented because of their radical synergism. You said we should scrap what is not taught in Scripture. So, where are the following verses. You know, the dogma you have been parroting for a long time here, echoing the Anabaptist invention:




"Thou art forbidden to baptize any under the age of X (and you won't be told what that age is)" Anti-Paedobaptism

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless they hath publicly proven they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died."

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless they first hath publicly proven their faith in Jesus as their Savior." Credobaptism

"Thou are forbidden to baptize any unless every cell of their body is entirely covered by water." Immersion mandate


And yes, the Anabaptist "reasons" you echo are radical synergism (their radical synerism is why they invented the dogma you parrot) and it does contradict with the monergism you echo when you speak of justification. Quite an amazing contradiction, as I've noted several times now. The reasons you give for your Anabaptist views are quite like the ones you mock for your Calvinist views. Amazing. But let's stick to your point: What is bot stated in Scripture is to be scrapped. Okay. Show the the Anabaptist inventions you parrot are stated in Scripture. Shall I give you the statements again?

 

[MennoSota]

The Bible says to baptize. I can't find the long list of prohibitions, limitations on God and denials that the Anabaptists invented because of their radical synergism. You said we should scrap what is not taught in Scripture. So, where are the following verses. You know, the dogma you have been parroting for a long time here, echoing the Anabaptist invention:




"Thou art forbidden to baptize any under the age of X (and you won't be told what that age is)" Anti-Paedobaptism

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless they hath publicly proven they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died."

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless they first hath publicly proven their faith in Jesus as their Savior." Credobaptism

"Thou are forbidden to baptize any unless every cell of their body is entirely covered by water." Immersion mandate


And yes, the Anabaptist "reasons" you echo are radical synergism (their radical synerism is why they invented the dogma you parrot) and it does contradict with the monergism you echo when you speak of justification. Quite an amazing contradiction, as I've noted several times now. The reasons you give for your Anabaptist views are quite like the ones you mock for your Calvinist views. Amazing. But let's stick to your point: What is bot stated in Scripture is to be scrapped. Okay. Show the the Anabaptist inventions you parrot are stated in Scripture. Shall I give you the statements again?

Where do you see pigs baptized? How about chickens? Do you baptize anything and everything just because you can't find a restriction? My goodness, Josiah, you hold to a position that is getting sillier by the second.
When I see someone walking down the street sprinkling water all over everyone and everything, I will know they are Lutheran.

 

[Josiah]

Where do you see pigs baptized? How about chickens?

So, to you, since you can't find ANY of the prohibitions you echo from the Anabaptists, therefore we have to consider the commands to baptism to apply to frogs, to VW's, to televisions? How desperate are you.


Your dogma that you echo from the synergistic Anabaptists is that we are forbidden to baptize any who haven not yet celebrated their Xth brithday (but won't tell us what birthday that is) - the anti infant baptism,the anti-Paedobaptims; that we are forbidden to baptize any who have not first proven they are among the unnamed few for who Jesus died, that they have first proven they first have faith.... and you INSIST we are to "scrap anything Scripture does not state" but you can't find where Scripture states ANY of the things you do!!!!


Note how you can't find any of the Scriptures you yourself insist are needed, or we are to "scrap" these inventions. That includes the inventions of these radical synergist Anabaptists who invented your baptist dogmas that you parrot (and the reasons they gave for all their prohibitions, limitations and denials). Scripture says to love - even as Christ first love us. DO you insist this means we are to love Toshiba televisons and Welche's grape juice? Do you insist this does not mean Calvinists because it doesn't say, "And this includes Calvinists but not Lutherans?" What silliness.

 

[MennoSota]

So, to you, since you can't find ANY of the prohibitions you echo from the Anabaptists, therefore we have to consider the commands to baptism to apply to frogs, to VW's, to televisions? How desperate are you.


Your dogma that you echo from the synergistic Anabaptists is that we are forbidden to baptize any who haven not yet celebrated their Xth brithday (but won't tell us what birthday that is) - the anti infant baptism,the anti-Paedobaptims; that we are forbidden to baptize any who have not first proven they are among the unnamed few for who Jesus died, that they have first proven they first have faith.... and you INSIST we are to "scrap anything Scripture does not state" but you can't find where Scripture states ANY of the things you do!!!!


Note how you can't find any of the Scriptures you yourself insist are needed, or we are to "scrap" these inventions. That includes the inventions of these radical synergist Anabaptists who invented your baptist dogmas that you parrot (and the reasons they gave for all their prohibitions, limitations and denials). Scripture says to love - even as Christ first love us. DO you insist this means we are to love Toshiba televisons and Welche's grape juice? Do you insist this does not mean Calvinists because it doesn't say, "And this includes Calvinists but not Lutherans?" What silliness.

To me, there is no biblical evidence of baptizing people who are not saved. I do not impose upon scripture therefore the privilege to baptize indiscriminately with no concern for the spiritual condition of the person being baptized. I do not presume upon God that he must save a person who I am baptizing just because I like to baptize on a whim.

 

[Josiah]

To me, there is no biblical evidence of baptizing people who are not saved.

According to you, that's irrelevant. According to you, we are to "scrap" anything that is not stated in the Bible. We are not impose things Scripture doesn't.

I'm simply accepting your premise. And applying it to you since you hold it so firmly.

So, where does Scripture state all these prohibitions and limitations and denials that the Anabaptists invented because of their radical synergism that you parrot and echo (including their synergist rationale)?


Where does Scripture state the things you parrot from the Anabaptists? Remember: We are to srape anything Scripture does not state, mandate, forbid, you insist....

"Thou canst NOT baptize any under the age of X and we won't tell you what age that is." The Anabaptist invention of Anti-Paedobaptism you perfectly echo, including their synergistic apologetic for this invention

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they first publicly prove they are among the unnamed few for whom Christ died."

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they first publicly prove they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior" The Anabaptist invention of Credobaptism you perfectly echo, including their synergistic apologetic for this invention.

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless thou immerse every cell of their body entierly under water" The immersion only dogma invented by the Anabaptists that you perfectly echo.


You say we are to scape everything not stated in the Bible. Where are these prohibitions stated in the Bible?



I hold we are to baptize (and no, don't mean that includes M&M candies or McDonald Restaurants, with the silly point you raised). The Bible says to love all - you don't dogmatically insist that means Donuts or means we are thus forbidden to love blue-eyed people or Japanese people or female people or tall people because the Bible does not specially state, "and this also means blue eyed people" or cannot mean Republicans because the verse doesn't specifically state, "And this includes those Americans who give their political party registration as Republican." TY


Let me repeat yet again, I can understand John Calvin's view that in HIS own persoanl opinion, in conflict with EVERY CHRISTIAN before him for over 1500 years, he personally doesn't see sufficient teaching in Scripture that Baptism is a means of grace. Okay,I I (like very Christian before him and the vast majority like him) I disagree, but I "get it." He continued infant baptism...he called it a SACRAMENT (the word means an act God uses) and he taught much blessings from it - he just didn't see sufficiently that God can give faith through it. NOT because people have to be over the magical unknown age of X before God is released from His impotence. But he rejected ALL of the prohibitions and ALL of the radical synergistic apologetics of the Anabaptists - the ones you (a Calvinist) perfectly echo. As you know, the VAST majority of Calvinists practice infant baptism. As was my wife. YOU are the one perfectly echoing the synergistic apologetics of the Anabaptists. YOU are the one insisting on all these prohibitions. And you have not one verse that states them. And you insist we are to toss out anything that isn't stated in Scripture.





.






.

 

[MennoSota]

According to you, that's irrelevant. According to you, we are to "scrap" anything that is not stated in the Bible. We are not impose things Scripture doesn't.

I'm simply accepting your premise. And applying it to you since you hold it so firmly.

So, where does Scripture state all these prohibitions and limitations and denials that the Anabaptists invented because of their radical synergism that you parrot and echo (including their synergist rationale)?


Where does Scripture state the things you parrot from the Anabaptists? Remember: We are to srape anything Scripture does not state, mandate, forbid, you insist....

"Thou canst NOT baptize any under the age of X and we won't tell you what age that is." The Anabaptist invention of Anti-Paedobaptism you perfectly echo, including their synergistic apologetic for this invention

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they first publicly prove they are among the unnamed few for whom Christ died."

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they first publicly prove they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior" The Anabaptist invention of Credobaptism you perfectly echo, including their synergistic apologetic for this invention.

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless thou immerse every cell of their body entierly under water" The immersion only dogma invented by the Anabaptists that you perfectly echo.


You say we are to scape everything not stated in the Bible. Where are these prohibitions stated in the Bible?



I hold we are to baptize (and no, don't mean that includes M&M candies or McDonald Restaurants, with the silly point you raised). The Bible says to love all - you don't dogmatically insist that means Donuts or means we are thus forbidden to love blue-eyed people or Japanese people or female people or tall people because the Bible does not specially state, "and this also means blue eyed people" or cannot mean Republicans because the verse doesn't specifically state, "And this includes those Americans who give their political party registration as Republican."






.

Why should I care where scripture tells you to scrap your unbiblical procedures? Your request is smoke and mirrors in an attempt to hold on to a ceremony that tells families that their infants are saved. See you in 12 years for the next ceremony. And by the way, after that next ceremony, your in like Flinn so party hearty. My goodness, Josiah, the Lutheran Church is filled with graceless members who believe their baptism saves them and their confirmation class seals them. All because you refuse to give up your traditions that have zero biblical support...but since there is nothing forbidding us baptizing unredeemed people...let's just keep up the tradition so we can watch unredeemed people go to hell feeling good about their membership in the Lutheran Church. "Have fun in hell boys! Glad we could make you feel good by baptizing your unregenerate soul and having it do nothing to save you! Glad you could live like hell and think you're heaven bound! Just remember, God didn't say we couldn't so it's not our fault you are hellbound!"
My goodness it must be thrilling to falsely promote salvation to an unregenerate member in your church.
Josiah, your question is nearly identical to Satan's. "Did God say...?" Look at the horror of your argument and weep.

 

[Josiah]

Why should I care where scripture tells you to scrap your unbiblical procedures?

Because it's YOUR insistence, YOUR demand!


You parrot the list of prohibitions, limitations, restrictions and denials of the Anabaptists (who invented your dogma) and even their synergistic apologetic for them. And YOU insist we are to srap what is not stated in Scripture. That's YOUR mandate.

So, where are these prohibitions, limitations, restrictions and denials of the Anabaptists that you parrot stated in Scripture:

"Thou canst NOT baptize any under the age of X and we won't tell you what age that is." The Anabaptist invention of Anti-Paedobaptism you perfectly echo, including their synergistic apologetic for this invention

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they first publicly prove they are among the unnamed few for whom Christ died."

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they first publicly prove they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior" The Anabaptist invention of Credobaptism you perfectly echo, including their synergistic apologetic for this invention.

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless thou immerse every cell of their body entirely under water" The immersion only dogma invented by the Anabaptists that you perfectly echo.


You say we are to scap everything not stated in the Bible. Where are these prohibitions stated in the Bible?


I hold that we are told to baptize (and no, I don't think that means yellow school buses and not people). I don't see all these prohibitions, mandates, limitations, denials that you parrot from the Anabaptists. Where are they? YOU insists.... YOU INSIST.... we are to scrap anything no stated in the Bible. So I ask you, where are these prohibitions and mandates? But you seem to have not yet found them. Unless you do, maybe you should consider your own insistence? Maybe you should consider being a Calvinist anyway, who boldly condemned Anabaptists and all your Baptism dogma you parrot for them, and embrace infant baptism (Calvin even called it a Sacrament - a Sacred Act, an Act GOD uses)?





.

 

[MennoSota]

Because it's YOUR insistence, YOUR demand!


You parrot the list of prohibitions, limitations, restrictions and denials of the Anabaptists (who invented your dogma) and even their synergistic apologetic for them. And YOU insist we are to srap what is not stated in Scripture. That's YOUR mandate.

So, where are these prohibitions, limitations, restrictions and denials of the Anabaptists that you parrot stated in Scripture:

"Thou canst NOT baptize any under the age of X and we won't tell you what age that is." The Anabaptist invention of Anti-Paedobaptism you perfectly echo, including their synergistic apologetic for this invention

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they first publicly prove they are among the unnamed few for whom Christ died."

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they first publicly prove they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior" The Anabaptist invention of Credobaptism you perfectly echo, including their synergistic apologetic for this invention.

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless thou immerse every cell of their body entirely under water" The immersion only dogma invented by the Anabaptists that you perfectly echo.


You say we are to scap everything not stated in the Bible. Where are these prohibitions stated in the Bible?


I hold that we are told to baptize (and no, I don't think that means yellow school buses and not people). I don't see all these prohibitions, mandates, limitations, denials that you parrot from the Anabaptists. Where are they? YOU insists.... YOU INSIST.... we are to scrap anything no stated in the Bible. So I ask you, where are these prohibitions and mandates? But you seem to have not yet found them. Unless you do, maybe you should consider your own insistence? Maybe you should consider being a Calvinist anyway, who boldly condemned Anabaptists and all your Baptism dogma you parrot for them, and embrace infant baptism (Calvin even called it a Sacrament - a Sacred Act, an Act GOD uses)?





.

I demand this. That God's word guide us. God's word guides us not only through command, but also through what the church did.
What did the church do? It baptized those who were believers. We see it immediately in Acts 2. We see it in all of the epistles.
Josiah, I follow what God reveals. I don't make something up and then declare "has God said?" as an argument for practicing what is never practiced in the early church.
I cannot wrap my head around your insistance to do whatever feels right in your own eyes and then say "God never said I couldn't, therefore it must be right and good." Yet, this is your approach.
Please support that approach, Josiah.
I can support my approach to doing what the early church did.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I demand this. That ...

Really, you demand that. I am not willing to accede to your demands.

 

[MennoSota]

Really, you demand that. I am not willing to accede to your demands.

Yep. God's word is primary over all.
It does not surprise me that you make it secondary under your man-made dogma and attempt to use it as a prop for you man-made religion.

 

[Josiah]

Because it's YOUR insistence, YOUR demand!


You parrot the list of prohibitions, limitations, restrictions and denials of the Anabaptists (who invented your dogma) and even their synergistic apologetic for them. And YOU insist we are to srap what is not stated in Scripture. That's YOUR mandate.

So, where are these prohibitions, limitations, restrictions and denials of the Anabaptists that you parrot stated in Scripture:

"Thou canst NOT baptize any under the age of X and we won't tell you what age that is." The Anabaptist invention of Anti-Paedobaptism you perfectly echo, including their synergistic apologetic for this invention

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they first publicly prove they are among the unnamed few for whom Christ died."

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they first publicly prove they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior" The Anabaptist invention of Credobaptism you perfectly echo, including their synergistic apologetic for this invention.

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless thou immerse every cell of their body entirely under water" The immersion only dogma invented by the Anabaptists that you perfectly echo.


You say we are to scap everything not stated in the Bible. Where are these prohibitions stated in the Bible?


I hold that we are told to baptize (and no, I don't think that means yellow school buses and not people). I don't see all these prohibitions, mandates, limitations, denials that you parrot from the Anabaptists. Where are they? YOU insists.... YOU INSIST.... we are to scrap anything no stated in the Bible. So I ask you, where are these prohibitions and mandates? But you seem to have not yet found them. Unless you do, maybe you should consider your own insistence? Maybe you should consider being a Calvinist anyway, who boldly condemned Anabaptists and all your Baptism dogma you parrot for them, and embrace infant baptism (Calvin even called it a Sacrament - a Sacred Act, an Act GOD uses)?

I demand this.

Right. It is YOUR demand that we scrap whatever is not stated in Scripture.

So where are all the baptism prohibitations, limitations and denials that the Anabaptists invented in the late 16th Century because of their radical synergism, the dogma you echo, where are they stated in Scripture?


Because it's YOUR insistence, YOUR demand!


You parrot the list of prohibitions, limitations, restrictions and denials of the Anabaptists (who invented your dogma) and even their synergistic apologetic for them. And YOU insist we are to srap what is not stated in Scripture. That's YOUR mandate.

So, where are these prohibitions, limitations, restrictions and denials of the Anabaptists that you parrot stated in Scripture:

"Thou canst NOT baptize any under the age of X and we won't tell you what age that is." The Anabaptist invention of Anti-Paedobaptism you perfectly echo, including their synergistic apologetic for this invention

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they first publicly prove they are among the unnamed few for whom Christ died."

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they first publicly prove they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior" The Anabaptist invention of Credobaptism you perfectly echo, including their synergistic apologetic for this invention.

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless thou immerse every cell of their body entirely under water" The immersion only dogma invented by the Anabaptists that you perfectly echo.


You say we are to scap everything not stated in the Bible. Where are these prohibitions stated in the Bible?

I can support my approach to doing what the early church did.

The prohibitions, limitations, denials, mandates you parrot were invented by the Anabaptists in the late 16th Century. They didn't exist until then. Which is why you can't find them in the Bible or the Early Church or any church prior to the radical synergistic Anabaptists. You demand, you insist we scrape anything not stated in the Bible but you don't do that, rather you insert the tradition invented by the Anabaptists, invented because what all other Christians had done and held for nearly 1600 years didn't jibe with their radical synergism, their view that the young couldn't do their part in the salvation of themselves. They couldn't find any Scriptures either, but their apologetic ( which you parrot) was their synergism.

 

[MennoSota]

Right. It is YOUR demand that we scrap whatever is not stated in Scripture.

So where are all the baptism prohibitations, limitations and denials that the Anabaptists invented in the late 16th Century because of their radical synergism, the dogma you echo, where are they stated in Scripture?


Because it's YOUR insistence, YOUR demand!


You parrot the list of prohibitions, limitations, restrictions and denials of the Anabaptists (who invented your dogma) and even their synergistic apologetic for them. And YOU insist we are to srap what is not stated in Scripture. That's YOUR mandate.

So, where are these prohibitions, limitations, restrictions and denials of the Anabaptists that you parrot stated in Scripture:

"Thou canst NOT baptize any under the age of X and we won't tell you what age that is." The Anabaptist invention of Anti-Paedobaptism you perfectly echo, including their synergistic apologetic for this invention

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they first publicly prove they are among the unnamed few for whom Christ died."

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they first publicly prove they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior" The Anabaptist invention of Credobaptism you perfectly echo, including their synergistic apologetic for this invention.

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless thou immerse every cell of their body entirely under water" The immersion only dogma invented by the Anabaptists that you perfectly echo.


You say we are to scap everything not stated in the Bible. Where are these prohibitions stated in the Bible?


That God's word guide us. God's word guides us not only through command, but also through what the church did.
What did the church do? It baptized those who were believers. We see it immediately in Acts 2. We see it in all of the epistles.
Josiah, I follow what God reveals. I don't make something up and then declare "has God said?" as an argument for practicing what is never practiced in the early church.
I cannot wrap my head around your insistance to do whatever feels right in your own eyes and then say "God never said I couldn't, therefore it must be right and good." Yet, this is your approach.
Please support that approach, Josiah.
I can support my approach to doing what the early church did.

Josiah, everything you have bolded is an argument you have created in your own mind. It's not an argument I have made. atpollard has already addressed this fantasy of yours, which you built as a prop to support your unsupportable proposition. Exactly how long do you intend to make things up and then claim others make that argument?

 

[Josiah]

It's not an argument I have made.

YOU have stated we are to scrape anything not stated in the Bible. Then proven you can't find ANY of the prohibitions and limitations the Anabaptists invented that you parrot in the Bible.

YOU have argued the Anti-Paedobaptism Anabaptist dogma, that infants are not to be Baptized.

YOU have argued the Credobaptism Anabaptist dogma they invented, that recievers must first declare their faith.

YOU have argued that the receiver must prove that they are among the ones Jesus died for.

YOU have argued Baptist must be by immersion.

And you have demanded and insisted that anything not stated in the Bible must be scraped.

So where are all these mandates, all these prohibitions, all these limitated stated in the Bible?
,
Or are you doing EXACTLY what you condemn, simply parroting tbe new tradition of a single denomiantion on this, the Anabaptists. I think the answer is obvious. I'm absolutely sure you realize it.




.