Would I be admitted?

[MennoSota]

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.

Sola Scripture, Josiah. Otherwise there is no discussion.
You refuse to stick by Sola Scriptura in this matter. Why?
Address the scripture, please.

 

[Josiah]

Sola Scripture, Josiah. Otherwise there is no discussion.
You refuse to stick by Sola Scriptura in this matter. Why?
Address the scripture, please.

Sure. Quote the verse "Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday and hath chantedeth the sinner's prayer." When you find that verse, let me know.

Until then, all we have are your echos of the uber-synergistic arguments of the Anabaptists who invented your teaching in the 16th Century.... and a rubric that you yourself reject and don't follow.

Until then, I'm going with what the Bible says: Go.... baptize.... teach.... And following how EVERY CHRISTIAN on the planet (including those what knew the Apostles) did for 1500+ years until some uber-synergistic, radical, German wackedoodles invented your new idea out of thin air (without even claiming the Bible taught these limitations).




- Josiah




.

 

[Josiah]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwxHzo0QVYY

 

[MennoSota]

Josiah just address scripture, please. Is that too hard to accomplish?

 

[Albion]

I will.

Scripture indicates that baptism uses water. You took the unScriptural side of that argument.

Scripture does not say that you are guaranteed to be saved if you are baptized. You wrongly claimed that some or all of us believe that this is a consequence of Baptism.

Scripture shows us that children were baptized and there is absolutely nothing that indicates that only adults can be baptized. You opposed Scripture on that one.

Scripture clearly indicates that baptism requires a baptizer.

And Scripture nowhere indicates that baptism must be done by immersion. You wanted to amend Scripture to make it say that immersion is obligatory.

 

[psalms 91]

whatever you desire and however you believe, personally I believe that as Jesus died we should be immersed as that is a representation of death more so than being sprinkled. You are correct that there is no commandment for it but I do believe that John showed the way and the Egytian backed it up but hey, I dont want to argue with theologans such as here, seriously, it would be nice if we could find areas of common ground since from what I have seen noone here is about to change what they believe

 

[Josiah]

whatever you desire and however you believe, personally I believe that as Jesus died we should be immersed as that is a representation of death more so than being sprinkled. You are correct that there is no commandment for it but I do believe that John showed the way and the Egytian backed it up but hey, I dont want to argue with theologans such as here, seriously, it would be nice if we could find areas of common ground since from what I have seen noone here is about to change what they believe

1. Personally, I like the SYMBOLISM of immersion (Luther did, too, BTW). But I agree, there is NOTHING in Scripture that indicates that is the proper or only allowed mode of administration. There was a book written between 70-110 AD that expressly states taht Christian baptism may be by pouring or sprinkling - but seems to imply that immersion is better (the reason is not given). Ultimately, I don't think the amount of water in Baptism matters anymore than the amount of wine in Communion.

2. John the Baptist was administering one of the JEWISH forms of baptism - "The baptism of repentance". Christian baptism would not exist for some 3 years; it was not a Christian baptism. We know that Jesus was immersed, not because the Bible expressly says so but rather because we know how JEWS administered the JEWISH "baptism of repentance."

 

[Josiah]

Josiah just address scripture, please. Is that too hard to accomplish?

No problem! Just quote the verse (with reference) "Thou canst NOT baptize any untileth they hath celebrated their Xth birthday and hath chantedeth the sinner's prayer." Quote it then we can discuss.

And the verse, "Thou canst NOT do anything unless it hath been clearly illustrated as having been done as recorded in the Bible." Quote it then we can discuss.

But all we get from you is the echoing of the new arguments of the uber-synergist Anabaptists who invented this new view out of thin air, not because of anything in Scripture but because it fits with their synergism (0dd coming from one who claims to be a monergist and thus doesn't believe what he's echoing) and this rubric that you prove with every post that you denounce and don't practice.



.

 

[Josiah]

whatever you desire and however you believe, personally I believe that as Jesus died we should be immersed as that is a representation of death more so than being sprinkled. You are correct that there is no commandment for it but I do believe that John showed the way and the Egytian backed it up but hey, I dont want to argue with theologans such as here, seriously, it would be nice if we could find areas of common ground since from what I have seen noone here is about to change what they believe

Bill, IF one simply holds that baptism by immersion is better symbolism - NOT mandated, NO other custom denounced - then you get no arguments. Heck, Luther agreed with that! So did several Early Church Fathers. The EOC typically does it kinda that way. BUT, IMO, It's a whole other enchilada when one dogmatically shouts, "The ONLY permissible and valid way to apply the water is by total immersion - all others are apostate and invalid." See my point? IF the Anabaptists simply say, "OUR custom is immersion because we think its better symbolism, but we do not regard other modes as less effectual or permissible" then there would be no debate, but that's not what they do. Lutherans, Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodist, Orthodox, etc., are NOT telling anyone how much water to apply or how it must be applied.. they aren't the ones making dogma here or denouncing any other mode as not-valid. Bill, WE are not in any way forbidding or even taking ANYTHING away from baptism by immersion - it's PERFECTLY okay and permissible. WE aren't the ones making dogma here, prohibiting and mandating here. I understand your frustration (and share it), IMO you are just rebuking the wrong "side", lol.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

whatever you desire and however you believe, personally I believe that as Jesus died we should be immersed as that is a representation of death more so than being sprinkled.

Are you thinking of Romans 6 when you refer to burial & baptism?

You are correct that there is no commandment for it but I do believe that John showed the way and the Egytian backed it up but hey, I dont want to argue with theologans such as here, seriously, it would be nice if we could find areas of common ground since from what I have seen noone here is about to change what they believe

You are right that arguments do not change people's minds. To change one's mind a change of heart seems to be needed. That happens for reasons that argument do not normally touch.

 

[MennoSota]

No problem! Just quote the verse (with reference) "Thou canst NOT baptize any untileth they hath celebrated their Xth birthday and hath chantedeth the sinner's prayer." Quote it then we can discuss.

And the verse, "Thou canst NOT do anything unless it hath been clearly illustrated as having been done as recorded in the Bible." Quote it then we can discuss.

But all we get from you is the echoing of the new arguments of the uber-synergist Anabaptists who invented this new view out of thin air, not because of anything in Scripture but because it fits with their synergism (0dd coming from one who claims to be a monergist and thus doesn't believe what he's echoing) and this rubric that you prove with every post that you denounce and don't practice.



.

Again, you are deflecting. If you wish, put every verse that addresses baptism found in scripture up and we can analyze each verse to see where an unregenerate person is baptized and then God saves that person because they chose to be baptized.
I don't think we can find even one instance.
Josiah, you can make all the claims you wish, but if you have no biblical evidence it becomes nothing more than unsupported dogma. In essence, it becomes nothing more than Tetzel's teaching of indulgences, which helped spark the Reformation.
If you cannot support your claim with scripture, then admit you may be wrong.

 

[MennoSota]

Bill, IF one simply holds that baptism by immersion is better symbolism - NOT mandated, NO other custom denounced - then you get no arguments. Heck, Luther agreed with that! So did several Early Church Fathers. The EOC typically does it kinda that way. BUT, IMO, It's a whole other enchilada when one dogmatically shouts, "The ONLY permissible and valid way to apply the water is by total immersion - all others are apostate and invalid." See my point? IF the Anabaptists simply say, "OUR custom is immersion because we think its better symbolism, but we do not regard other modes as less effectual or permissible" then there would be no debate, but that's not what they do. Lutherans, Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodist, Orthodox, etc., are NOT telling anyone how much water to apply or how it must be applied.. they aren't the ones making dogma here or denouncing any other mode as not-valid.

Deflection. Come back to being on point, Josiah.

 

[Josiah]

Deflection. Come back to being on point, Josiah.

I am. Lutherans DO NOT in any way mandate or forbid ANY mode of baptism. That's your thing.

You keep saying you will only discuss Scripture - and I'm fine with that. So, I'm just waiting for you to quote the Scriptures: "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday" (the verse for the anti-paedobaptism invention of the Anabaptist) and "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath publicly chanted the sinner's prayer" (the credo-baptism invention of the Anabaptists). When you quote those verses, I'll be happy to discuss. But all we've gotten from you on this point since you came is 1) Echoing the synergistic arguments of the uber-synergistic Anabaptists who invented your new view - even though you CLAIM to be a monergist and thus denounce these arguments you echo, and 2) This silly rubric about can't do things unless they are illustrated in the Bible, odd because you constantly prove you renounce this rubric and don't follow it.



.

 

[MennoSota]

I am. Lutherans DO NOT in any way mandate or forbid ANY mode of baptism. That's your thing.

That is a patently false and misleading statement, Josiah.
The issue is NOT one of forbidding. The issue is whether God ever saves an unregenerate, dead in their trespasses and sins, human because that dead in their sins human chose to be baptized.
Can you produce any scriptural support that God ever did this during Jesus ministry or the age of the Apostles. What sayeth scripture, Josiah?

You keep saying you will only discuss Scripture - and I'm fine with that. So, I'm just waiting for you to quote the Scriptures: "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday" (the verse for the anti-paedobaptism invention of the Anabaptist) and "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath publicly chanted the sinner's prayer" (the credo-baptism invention of the Anabaptists). When you quote those verses, I'll be happy to discuss. But all we've gotten from you on this point since you came is 1) Echoing the synergistic arguments of the uber-synergistic Anabaptists who invented your new view - even though you CLAIM to be a monergist and thus denounce these arguments you echo, and 2) This silly rubric about can't do things unless they are illustrated in the Bible, odd because you constantly prove you renounce this rubric and don't follow it.

Literally no one.
I repeat...NO ONE...has ever made those claims. Not ONE person.
Why are you stuck in this false narrative you have built as a fantasy in your own mind?
My conclusion is that you have no biblical support for your belief and thus you must create an imaginary distraction to keep deflecting from the emptiness of your position.

Here is my position.
The Bible shows every baptism taking place after a person has been gifted faith. This is without exception. We go by what we observe in scripture. We can only go by Sola Scriptura. If God saves unregenerate humans when they are baptized, while dead in their sins, we have no biblical evidence. God has every right and authority to do such a thing. We, however, have no biblical evidence to make such a dogmatic claim.

If you baptize unregenerate humans, then the baptism seems to be John the Baptists baptism and not the baptism done by the Apostles from Pentacost and onward.
Do Lutherans teach John the Baptists baptism of repentance to the Kingdom of Israel and not baptism of those who are saved?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwxHzo0QVYY

"Dang it, I really need to stop writing these letters after four glasses of wine...I mean grape juice."

 

[Josiah]

Lutherans DO NOT in any way mandate or forbid ANY mode of baptism. That's your thing.


.

That is a patently false


.

No, what I posted is NOT "patiently false." Lutherans DO NOT in any way mandate or forbid ANY mode of baptism. It's the Anabaptist who insist on immersion

Can you produce any scriptural support that God ever did this during Jesus ministry or the age of the Apostles. What sayeth scripture, Josiah?

This is a silly, absurd rubric that YOU YOURSELF reject, repudiate and never follow. So since you repudiate it and never follow it, why should anyone else?

Can you produce any scriptural support that God ever posted on the internet during Jesus's ministry or in the age of the Apostles? If not, why do you post on the internet? I'd guess 90%+ of what any Anabaptist church does on a Sunday morning can NOT be documented in the Bible as having been done by Jesus or in the age of the Apostles - yet they obviously think it's okay to do it. There goes your argument - you don't agree with it. Baptists don't agree with it, no one agrees with it. It's silly. It's absurd. It's universally rejected - including by you.


You keep saying you will only discuss Scripture - and I'm fine with that. So, I'm just waiting for you to quote the Scriptures: "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday" (the verse for the anti-paedobaptism invention of the Anabaptist) and "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath publicly chanted the sinner's prayer" (the credo-baptism invention of the Anabaptists). When you quote those verses, I'll be happy to discuss. But all we've gotten from you on this point since you came is 1) Echoing the synergistic arguments of the uber-synergistic Anabaptists who invented your new view - even though you CLAIM to be a monergist and thus denounce these arguments you echo, and 2) This silly rubric about can't do things unless they are illustrated in the Bible, odd because you constantly prove you renounce this rubric and don't follow it.

My conclusion is that you have no biblical support

My conclusion is that while you keep shouting about how you will ONLY follow what Scripture says, since you cannot quote the verse, "Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath first celebrated their Xth Birthday" and since you cannot quote the verse "Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath first chantfed the Sinner's Prayer" and since you cannot quote the verse, "Thou canst NOT baptize any except by full immersion" then you have NOTHING of what you demand. Nothing. Just the echoing of the synergistic arguments of the Anabaptists (which you CLAIM to reject but you parrot them anyway) and this silly rubric that you PROVE you reject every time you post. That's all you have to support this sudden, new invention of the radical synergistic Anabaptists in the 16th Century, invented NOT because of anything in Scripture (which is why you can't produce any Scripture to support it) but because their new invention "fit" their radical synergism (which you claim to reject but keep promoting).

The Bible shows every baptism taking place after a person has been gifted faith. This is without exception.

Patently false.

We've been over this many times. There are those "... and her household" baptisms. It is IMPOSSIBLE to know the age, gender, education of ANY of those "in their household" and impossible to know whether they had chanted the sinner's prayer BEFORE they were baptized. What you state is an obvious lie.


And even if your claim was true (and it is patiently, undeniably FALSE), so what? Every baptism in the Bible seem to have been administered by a Hebrew male.... do you forbid any Gentile from administering baptism? No, so you reject your whole argument. Was any American Indian baptized in the Bible? No. Do Baptists thus forbid them from being baptized? No, so you reject your whole argument. And, friend, how many in the Bible posted on the internet? But here you are.... HEre again, you are making a rule that YOU YOURSELF (and Baptists in general) reject and don't follow.

We can only go by Sola Scriptura.

I'm good with that. That's why I'm waiting for you to give the reference for these two verses: "Thou canst not baptize any unless and until they hath first celebrated their Xth birthday." And, "Thou canst not baptize any unless and until they hath first chanted the sinner's prayer." I can't find those verses. When you give the reference and I can read them, I'll discuss them. You keep refusing to give the reference.... I wonder why?





.

 

[Albion]

No, what I posted is NOT "patiently false." Lutherans DO NOT in any way mandate or forbid ANY mode of baptism. It's the Anabaptist who insist on immersion

Yes. I have to say that that particular contribution by our friend was stunningly ridiculous--like an exercise in footstamping when there's nothing new to say but there is a felt need to have the last word.

 

[MennoSota]

No, what I posted is NOT "patiently false." Lutherans DO NOT in any way mandate or forbid ANY mode of baptism. It's the Anabaptist who insist on immersion









This is a silly, absurd rubric that YOU YOURSELF reject, repudiate and never follow. So since you repudiate it and never follow it, why should anyone else?

Can you produce any scriptural support that God ever posted on the internet during Jesus's ministry or in the age of the Apostles? If not, why do you post on the internet? I'd guess 90%+ of what any Anabaptist church does on a Sunday morning can NOT be documented in the Bible as having been done by Jesus or in the age of the Apostles - yet they obviously think it's okay to do it. There goes your argument - you don't agree with it. Baptists don't agree with it, no one agrees with it. It's silly. It's absurd. It's universally rejected - including by you.


You keep saying you will only discuss Scripture - and I'm fine with that. So, I'm just waiting for you to quote the Scriptures: "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday" (the verse for the anti-paedobaptism invention of the Anabaptist) and "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath publicly chanted the sinner's prayer" (the credo-baptism invention of the Anabaptists). When you quote those verses, I'll be happy to discuss. But all we've gotten from you on this point since you came is 1) Echoing the synergistic arguments of the uber-synergistic Anabaptists who invented your new view - even though you CLAIM to be a monergist and thus denounce these arguments you echo, and 2) This silly rubric about can't do things unless they are illustrated in the Bible, odd because you constantly prove you renounce this rubric and don't follow it.







My conclusion is that while you keep shouting about how you will ONLY follow what Scripture says, since you cannot quote the verse, "Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath first celebrated their Xth Birthday" and since you cannot quote the verse "Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath first chantfed the Sinner's Prayer" and since you cannot quote the verse, "Thou canst NOT baptize any except by full immersion" then you have NOTHING of what you demand. Nothing. Just the echoing of the synergistic arguments of the Anabaptists (which you CLAIM to reject but you parrot them anyway) and this silly rubric that you PROVE you reject every time you post. That's all you have to support this sudden, new invention of the radical synergistic Anabaptists in the 16th Century, invented NOT because of anything in Scripture (which is why you can't produce any Scripture to support it) but because their new invention "fit" their radical synergism (which you claim to reject but keep promoting).








Patently false.

We've been over this many times. There are those "... and her household" baptisms. It is IMPOSSIBLE to know the age, gender, education of ANY of those "in their household" and impossible to know whether they had chanted the sinner's prayer BEFORE they were baptized. What you state is an obvious lie.


And even if your claim was true (and it is patiently, undeniably FALSE), so what? Every baptism in the Bible seem to have been administered by a Hebrew male.... do you forbid any Gentile from administering baptism? No, so you reject your whole argument. Was any American Indian baptized in the Bible? No. Do Baptists thus forbid them from being baptized? No, so you reject your whole argument. And, friend, how many in the Bible posted on the internet? But here you are.... HEre again, you are making a rule that YOU YOURSELF (and Baptists in general) reject and don't follow.








I'm good with that. That's why I'm waiting for you to give the reference for these two verses: "Thou canst not baptize any unless and until they hath first celebrated their Xth birthday." And, "Thou canst not baptize any unless and until they hath first chanted the sinner's prayer." I can't find those verses. When you give the reference and I can read them, I'll discuss them. You keep refusing to give the reference.... I wonder why?





.

Josiah, what does the Bible say about the unregenerate being baptized? Is there any place where an unsaved person was baptized and then they were given faith by virtue of that baptism?
I am open to being shown that God, in fact, does such a thing.
Please stop rambling on a nonuseful tangent that deflects from the issue. You are avoiding the topic.

 

[MennoSota]

Yes. I have to say that that particular contribution by our friend was stunningly ridiculous--like an exercise in footstamping when there's nothing new to say but there is a felt need to have the last word.

You are speaking to a topic I never brought up. Josiah is attempting to derail and deflect away from this specific topic:
Is baptism, in scripture, ever given to the unregenerate so that God might perhaps save them via the process of baptism?
Do we have any evidence that this was done by the Apostles and the early church?

 

[Josiah]

Is there any place where an unsaved person was baptized and then they were given faith by virtue of that baptism?

I reject your rubric that only the history as recorded in the Bible can be true..... It's a silly rubric that you reject and so does everyone else. Oh, and I'd be careful, if I were you: The Bible doesn't support your premise, even here. Consider even the often reference of the Ethiopian in Acts 8 - it doens't say he was a BELIEVER before he was baptized, only that he had been taught and that he requested baptism; I agree he PROBABLY was but the Bible never states such.... so I could use that as an example, but I won't - mostly because your whole premise of the question is absurd.

But using your premise,,,,

Is there any place in the Bible where an unsaved person is DENIED baptism?
Is there any place in the Bible where a person who had not yet celebrated their Xth birthday was DENIED baptism?
Is there any place in the Bible where a person who had not yet chanted the sinner's prayer was DENIED baptism?
Is there any place in the Bible where a Gentile performs a baptism?
Is there any place in the Bible where an American is baptized?
Is there any place in the Bible where a baptism is denied because there wasn't enough water to totally immerse the person?
Is there any place in the Bible where a person came to faith because of Sunday School or VBS or Church Camp?

I think everyone else is seeing how silly your rubric is... the one you violate with every post.... The Bible says GO... Baptize.... Teach. It doesn't say "BUT thou canst not do this unless you can prove from history recorded in the Bible that something will happen as a result. Thou canst not do this unless and until the receiver has first celebrated their xth birthday. Thou canst NOT do this unless the receiver hath first chantedeth the Sinner's Prayer. Thou canst NOT do this unless the reciever hath first received 53 hours of instruction in Baptist theology. Thou canst NOT do this unless there is enough water to immerse the person fully under water. Sorry. Those German synergistic wackedoodle Anabaptists in the 16th Century invented all those restrictions, limitations and prohibitions.... Jesus and the Apostles did not. And the Anabaptists invented them NOT because of anything in Scripture but because they were radical synergists and needed to twist baptism to fit that synergism.



.