Would I be admitted?

[MennoSota]

Zero. Neither did God do any work in your infant baptism. It is purely church dogma.


I would state that God can do as He wills, but we cannot dictate that God must do as we demand.

This idea of the passivity and impotence of God is alarming

Apparently you chose to ignore my other point.
I am unsure why you think God is passive an impotent if God refuses to play by your church dogma rules. What should alarm you is the nonbiblical dogma of your church in perpetuating a false doctrine.
We cannot dictate that God must save the infant who is baptized by an ordained minister. Such a demand is arrogant and reveals an utter lack of biblical understanding regarding the function of baptism in the church. It goes beyond lack of understanding to become prideful declaration that God saved a person because parents performed a ceremony on their oblivious infant that forced God to act and thus eliminated grace from salvation.
Do you see how awful such a demand is when it is levied against the Sovereign God of Creation?
God does as He wills, not as your church dogma demands.

 

[Albion]

We cannot dictate that God must save the infant who is baptized by an ordained minister.

No one here does.

 

[MennoSota]

No one here does.

Contrary to your assertion there are people here who claim God saved them at their infant baptism. They attempt to say it was at that moment God graciously chose them, but their claim is baseless and caused by their church dogma.

 

[Albion]

Contrary to your assertion there are people here who claim God saved them at their infant baptism.

Quote them for us if you imagine that this ^ is what they said.

No side issues like they received grace at baptism, they become a member of the church, they received the Holy Ghost, they were given the assurance of God's love for them, their sins (up to that point) were forgiven, etc. Nothing like that. Just show us the claim that because they were baptized they were guaranteed eternal life in heaven.





.

 

[MennoSota]

Quote them for us if you imagine that this ^ is what they said.

No side issues like they received grace at baptism, they become a member of the church, they received the Holy Ghost, they were given the assurance of God's love for them, their sins (up to that point) were forgiven, etc. Nothing like that. Just show us the claim that because they were baptized they were guaranteed eternal life in heaven.





.

Do you think those are side issues that don't apply to salvation?
Albion, you are attempting to nitpick so as to get around the issue.

 

[Albion]

Do you think those are side issues that don't apply to salvation?

They are not on the point we were discussing.

Now show us the actual statements from those people you said have claimed that God saved them at their baptism. No one forced you to make that charge or to change you own position on this matter back and forth again.

 

[MennoSota]

They are not on the point we were discussing.

Now show us the actual statements from those people you said have claimed that God saved them at their baptism. No one forced you to make that charge or to change you own position on this matter back and forth again.

I will not waste my time searching, Albion.
What I take from this conversation is that, for you, your infant baptism was simply a dedication ceremony that your parents initiated to say they would do their best to raise you in the knowledge of the Lord. Whether water is used or not used, parents are welcome and expected to point their children toward Christ.
But, most Romans and Lutheran's seem to make it something more than that. They speak of God extending grace to a child because of the ceremony of baptism. Such an assertion is dogma, not biblical truth.

 

[Albion]

I will not waste my time searching, Albion.

Of course. What a surprise.

Then lets hope we are not treated to that disinformation again. :nono:

 

[MennoSota]

Of course. What a surprise.

Then lets hope we are not treated to that disinformation again. :nono:

I am not providing disinformation. You simply cannot see how the statement "baptism is a means of grace" is actually a nullification of grace. It is, instead, an insertion of works, which is contrary to the scriptures.

 

[Josiah]

I am saying that only God, himself, can activate that ability to believe.

Albion, ImaginaryDay2 and myself are not disagreeing with that (no Monergist would).

What I'm disagreeing with is that because Baptism involves some human effort on the part of a Christian, ERGO God is impotent to bless because some human work is involved. You seem to be dismissing Baptism as being able to be used by God BECAUSE there's some human work involved by the one administering the baptism to the passive receiver. And you seem to be confusing BELIEVING God does something with DEMANDING that God do something... they aren't the same thing, my friend.

But, you cannot baptize a dead man and expect that such an action will make that man (or infant) come to life.

Again, yet again, one more time by yet one more person, no Lutheran or Anglican has ever remotely believed, taught or confessed that a human action CAUSES one to come to life. Indeed, that fundamentally conflicts with everything we believe, teach and confess. Where we disagree with you, my friend, is that if some human effort is involved by a Christians, ERGO God is impotent to bless anyone. Billy Graham did NOT make it impossible for God to bless because he worked by preparing and preaching his sermons. And parents do NOT sin and render God impotent by bringing their children to Sunday School even though I realize that means human effort is involved. FRIEND, no Lutheran or Anglican on the planet believe that parents save their children and that parents give faith, spiritual life and the Holy Spirit to their children, they believe GOD does. We profess SOLA Gratia - SOLUS Christus - SOLA Fide, SOLI Deo Gloria. What part of "solo" don't you understand? But again, God is NOT rendered impotent if some human does something.




.

 

[Albion]

I am not providing disinformation..

Call it something else, then. Most of the synonyms aren't as pleasant to the ear, so I used that word.

By whatever title, you still cannot support your claim.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Albion, ImaginaryDay2 and myself are not disagreeing with that (no Monergist would).

What I'm disagreeing with is that because Baptism involves some human effort on the part of a Christian, ERGO God is impotent to bless because some human work is involved. You seem to be dismissing Baptism as being able to be used by God BECAUSE there's some human work involved by the one administering the baptism to the passive receiver. And you seem to be confusing BELIEVING God does something with DEMANDING that God do something... they aren't the same thing, my friend.





Again, yet again, one more time by yet one more person, no Lutheran or Anglican has ever remotely believed, taught or confessed that a human action CAUSES one to come to life. Indeed, that fundamentally conflicts with everything we believe, teach and confess. Where we disagree with you, my friend, is that if some human effort is involved by a Christians, ERGO God is impotent to bless anyone. Billy Graham did NOT make it impossible for God to bless because he worked by preparing and preaching his sermons. And parents do NOT sin and render God impotent by bringing their children to Sunday School even though I realize that means human effort is involved. FRIEND, no Lutheran or Anglican on the planet believe that parents save their children and that parents give faith, spiritual life and the Holy Spirit to their children, they believe GOD does. We profess SOLA Gratia - SOLUS Christus - SOLA Fide, SOLI Deo Gloria. What part of "solo" don't you understand? But again, God is NOT rendered impotent if some human does something.




.

What I am saying is that there is no biblical indication that the unsaved are baptized and that in the unbelievers baptism, God acts to save them, apart from their own knowledge.
That is the essence of what you are claiming that God can do in baptism.
God can cause the earth to fly through the sun and have everyone emerge out the other side unscathed, but we have no indication he will do so.
Therefore, infant baptism should only be done as a dedication ceremony where parents vow to raise their child in the knowledge and fear of the Lord. Salvation should never be attached to infant baptism.

 

[MennoSota]

Call it something else, then. Most of the synonyms aren't as pleasant to the ear, so I used that word.

By whatever title, you still cannot support your claim.




.

Why baptize infants, Albion?

 

[Arsenios]

Why baptize infants, Albion?

Well, I am not Albion...
But even so...
How come you never asked ME that question?

BECAUSE:
Apostolic Baptism ENTERS one INTO Christ...
THEREFORE:
We enter our infants INTO Christ too...

SO:
Why do YOU keep YOUR babies OUT of Christ?

You NEVER give ME these good questions, Menno!

Do you NOT LOVE me any more???


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

Well, I am not Albion...
But even so...
How come you never asked ME that question?

BECAUSE:
Apostolic Baptism ENTERS one INTO Christ...
THEREFORE:
We enter our infants INTO Christ too...

SO:
Why do YOU keep YOUR babies OUT of Christ?

You NEVER give ME these good questions, Menno!

Do you NOT LOVE me any more???


Arsenios

You are teaching a biblically unsupported, false doctrine, Arsenios.

 

[Josiah]

What I am saying is that there is no biblical indication that the unsaved are baptized

What you have is a complete lack of ANYTHING in the Bible or for 1500 years of Christian history that only believers may be baptized and that only believers where baptized. You have NOTHING, my friend, to support this sudden Anabaptist invention of "believer only baptism." Remember: it's the Anabaptists putting the bold new restriction on this (GOTTA be a believer first, GOTTA celebrate their X birthday first) - and so IMO they need to substantiate that prohibition.

apart from their own knowledge.

I can understand why synergists would argue that God is rendered impotent to save if the receiver hasn't or can't do their part. But when a MONERGIST like you insists on that, "Houston, we got a problem." Perhaps you haven't throught it through or actually aren't a monergist at all. You CLAIM on the one hand that God does all the saving and that the receiver just receives (right, there, my friend) THEN that God cannot save anyone unless they have "their own knowledge." Many Anabaptists will add, "Unless they have attained the age of X" in addition to your condition that the reciever must have attained the knowledge level of X. I can understand why the highly synergistic Anabaptists invented this view of baptism (it fits with their uber-synergism) but it makes no sense coming from a Reformed person who claims to be a monergist.





.

 

[MennoSota]

What you have is a complete lack of ANYTHING in the Bible or for 1500 years of Christian history that only believers may be baptized and that only believers where baptized. You have NOTHING, my friend, to support this sudden Anabaptist invention of "believer only baptism." Remember: it's the Anabaptists putting the bold new restriction on this (GOTTA be a believer first, GOTTA celebrate their X birthday first) - and so IMO they need to substantiate that prohibition.

I can understand why synergists would argue that God is rendered impotent to save if the receiver hasn't or can't do their part. But when a MONERGIST like you insists on that, "Houston, we got a problem." Perhaps you haven't throught it through or actually aren't a monergist at all. You CLAIM on the one hand that God does all the saving and that the receiver just receives (right, there, my friend) THEN that God cannot save anyone unless they have "their own knowledge." Many Anabaptists will add, "Unless they have attained the age of X" in addition to your condition that the reciever must have attained the knowledge level of X. I can understand why the highly synergistic Anabaptists invented this view of baptism (it fits with their uber-synergism) but it makes no sense coming from a Reformed person who claims to be a monergist.
.

Josiah, you are making a false argument that has nothing to do with synergism or monergism. It has to do with the fact that no baby is ever recorded as having been baptized in scripture. No person, in scripture, was ever baptized first, before they were saved. You cannot produce even one instance. At best you pluck a verse or two in which you imply what is not stated.
This argument has nothing to do with anabaptists, Romanists, Calvinists, Lutheranists or any other ist. This issue is solely within scripture alone. Please stop attempting to deflect away from God's word to a straw man argument.
Are unsaved babies saved when they are baptized as infants? Make your case from scripture or go home.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, you are making a false argument that has nothing to do with synergism or monergism.

You are the one who dismissed baptism as a means of grace because it's "apart from their own knowledge." Yes, that is inconsistent with monergism; if the knowledge of the receiver is essential for God to be able to give faith, then yes - it's synergistic: the receiver must supply his/her part, do his/her part, contribute. As you know, Anabaptists invented this whole theology of baptism as a consequence of their radical synergism - and I agree, it is consistent with radical synergism. Just not with monergism.

Which are you: Monergist or synergist?

It has to do with the fact that no baby is ever recorded as having been baptized in scripture.

SO WHAT?

Can you show that any blonde/blue eyed male was loved by anyone in the Bible? If not, does that prove that blonde/blue-eyed males are forbidden from being loved and the command to love doesn't apply to them?

And this is a rubric you yourself reject, so why should anyone accept what you reject? Where do we find anyone posting on the internet in the Bible, but here you are.... I'd guess 90%+ of what the typical Baptist church does on a Sunday morning is not once illustrated as being done in the Bible.

This is, perhaps, the most foolish argument in all of the Anabaptist movement.... one every Anabaptist contradicts and PROVES they themselves reject it (as you do every time you post on the internet)

No person, in scripture, was ever baptized first, before they were saved.

Even if this MATTERED (and it doesn't, not a bit, not at all), you can't prove it. There are all those "and their household" cases. And there is NO WAY TO KNOW about the others in their household: we can't know their ages... their genders... whether they chanted the "Sinner's Prayer" beforehand or not. IF every case stated "and FIRST they chanted the Sinner's Day and ONLY AFTER were they baptized..." then you'd have a point, but that's not the case. But again, it's a SILLY rubric. You are forbidden to post on the internet if your rubric were true.

This issue is solely within scripture alone.

Alright. So, in the 16th Century, this new, radical Anabaptist movement invented something out of the blue - which no one notice before. That the Bible forbids baptism to those under the age of X and who had not FIRST chanted the Sinner's Prayer. Problem is, friend, no Anabaptist has found that prohibition. Nor anyone else. Nor the one forbidding love toward a guy with blonde hair and blue eyes (although I admit, there is no verse about loving blonde guys or clear example of it). If every Christian for 1500 years was so badly WRONG about this... and since you claim we can't just invent stuff without clear Scripture... then where is this prohibition from baptising those under the age of X who have not first chanted the Sinner's Prayer? These Scrptures that the Anabaptists suddenly found in the 16th Century that no Christian for 1500 years had seen before (and none since), quote it for us. Where is this prohibition stated in the Bible?




.

 

[MennoSota]

You are the one who dismissed baptism as a means of grace because it's "apart from their own knowledge." Yes, that is inconsistent with monergism; if the knowledge of the receiver is essential for God to be able to give faith, then yes - it's synergistic: the receiver must supply his/her part, do his/her part, contribute. As you know, Anabaptists invented this whole theology of baptism as a consequence of their radical synergism - and I agree, it is consistent with radical synergism. Just not with monergism.

Which are you: Monergist or synergist?






SO WHAT?

Can you show that any blonde/blue eyed male was loved by anyone in the Bible? If not, does that prove that blonde/blue-eyed males are forbidden from being loved and the command to love doesn't apply to them?

And this is a rubric you yourself reject, so why should anyone accept what you reject? Where do we find anyone posting on the internet in the Bible, but here you are.... I'd guess 90%+ of what the typical Baptist church does on a Sunday morning is not once illustrated as being done in the Bible.

This is, perhaps, the most foolish argument in all of the Anabaptist movement.... one every Anabaptist contradicts and PROVES they themselves reject it (as you do every time you post on the internet)







Even if this MATTERED (and it doesn't, not a bit, not at all), you can't prove it. There are all those "and their household" cases. And there is NO WAY TO KNOW about the others in their household: we can't know their ages... their genders... whether they chanted the "Sinner's Prayer" beforehand or not. IF every case stated "and FIRST they chanted the Sinner's Day and ONLY AFTER were they baptized..." then you'd have a point, but that's not the case. But again, it's a SILLY rubric. You are forbidden to post on the internet if your rubric were true.





Alright. So, in the 16th Century, this new, radical Anabaptist movement invented something out of the blue - which no one notice before. That the Bible forbids those under the age of X who had not FIRST chanted the Sinner's Prayer. Problem is, friend, no Anabaptist has found that prohibition. Nor the one forbidding love toward a guy with blonde hair and blue eyes (although I admit, there is no verse about loving blonde guys or clear example of it). If every Christian for 1500 years was so badly WRONG about this... and since you claim we can't just invent stuff without clear Scripture... then where is this prohibition from baptising those under the age of X who have not first chanted the Sinner's Prayer? These Scrptures that the Anabaptists suddenly found in the 16th Century that no Christian for 1500 years had seen before, quote it for us. Where is this prohibition?




.

Straw man. Address scripture. The rest is an irrelevant attempt on your part to deflect.
Does the Bible teach that unregenerate human beings are given the grace of salvation/adoption upon being baptized?
Yes...or No?

 

[Josiah]

Straw man. Address scripture.

Yeah. Just quote the Scripture that states, "Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday and hath first chantethed the sinner's prayer." When you find that verse, let us know. Oh, and also "Thou canst NOT love any blonde haired, blue eyed male!"


And you didn't answer: Are you a monergist (so that what the unbaptized person has or doesn't have MATTERS NOT AT ALL) or are you a raging synergist, like Anabaptists, and hold that the unbaptized must contribute something (like their knowledge, as you stated earlier)? Here's the reality: This brand new view of Baptism, sprung out of nothing in the 16th Century, was a consequence of the radical synergism of the Anabaptist, NOT because of some verse they found (but you obviously can't) but because it "fit" with their radical synergism. Your "but babies can't!!!! But babies don't!!!!!" argument doesn't fit with your CLAIMED monergism.


Yes, I think your silly argument about how we can't do anything (like posting on the internet) unless it is clearly illustrated as having been done in the Bible is a straw man....

Yes, I think your silly argument that if we have no clear illustrations of a blonde man being loved in the Bible, ERGO we aren't to love blonde guys is a straw man.... just as silly as when "baby" is substituted for "blonde" and "baptize" substituted for loved.