Can babies be conscious of their baptism?

[MennoSota]

The word "baptism" in Greek has more meanings than "immerse". A simple word study would help.

It is not limited to only water, which is what Josiah is attempting to do.

 

[MennoSota]

That didn't answer my question

Then I missed what you were asking. Clarify please.

 

[MennoSota]

That didn't answer my question in context either.

Then clarify.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Then I missed what you were asking. Clarify please.

Here's the gist of it:

Why equate what God will do with what he is obligated to do...?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Then clarify.

If grace is offered in one sense (saving grace), and not in another (through the act of baptism), then we are dealing with a limited and fickle God, and the baptismal act really has no meaning at all.

 

[JPPT1974]

Yeah as sometimes in baptism as there are pastors that try to baptize carefully like just put a sprinkle of water on the baby to make sure that they are not drowned. You know what I mean?!

 

[MennoSota]

Here's the gist of it:

I don't understand the question.

My question is: Why teach that God is obligated to extend saving grace via infant baptism?

 

[MennoSota]

If grace is offered in one sense (saving grace), and not in another (through the act of baptism), then we are dealing with a limited and fickle God, and the baptismal act really has no meaning at all.

Grace is not offered via baptism at all. That is your fallacy. If grace needed baptism then there would be an action required by God for Him to save a person. It would be salvation by works apart from grace.
The only meaning water baptism has is as an outward ceremony to men declaring that God has extended grace to me. Thus, baptism is not done until the individual can express to the world that s/he has experienced saving faith. An infant is not cognitively able to express that truth and the infants parents or guardians are not commissioned by God to make a declaration of saving faith on the infants behalf. Those who teach such a thing abuse the scriptures in effort to create a dogma that is not taught in the Bible.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

You stated:

Quote the passage where God says he will give a child the gift of faith if parents baptize their infants.
Where is the vow that God makes to these parents so that he becomes obligated?

So - the statement equates what God will do with what he becomes obligated to do. Why?

Why teach that God is obligated to extend saving grace via infant baptism?

My answer to this (separate) question was that he is not obligated, but does so out of his free choice and grace

 

[MennoSota]

You stated:



So - the statement equates what God will do with what he becomes obligated to do. Why?



My answer to this (separate) question was that he is not obligated, but does so out of his free choice and grace

You do not know that he gives grace to infants via baptism. There is no biblical text that supports your assertion. You want it to be so. You wish it to be so, but you have no evidence.
Therefore you are trying to force God to do what he has never promised he does or will do.
Now, could God choose to give the gift of grace to an infant, baptized or not baptized? Sure. But the evidence will not be known until God reveals that gift to the child at His time, not because the child's parents demand or expect it at the infants baptism.
Conclusion: Infant baptism is a selfish act of parents who are ignorant of God's means of grace.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Quote the passage where God says he will give a child the gift of faith if parents baptize their infants. Where is the vow that God makes to these parents so that he becomes obligated?

...The statement equates what God will do with what he becomes obligated to do. Why?

Do you intend to answer this part? If not I'll leave it alone and assume you have no answer.

 

[MennoSota]

Do you intend to answer this part? If not I'll leave it alone and assume you have no answer.

I think I have answered your questions. I am not obligated to run down the rabbit hole when I have answered clearly.

 

[Josiah]

Grace is not offered via baptism at all. That is your fallacy. If grace needed baptism then there would be an action required by God for Him to save a person. It would be salvation by works apart from grace.

See post # 68 (and so many others) which you have mostly ignored.

The only meaning water baptism has is as an outward ceremony to men declaring that God has extended grace to me

You keep saying that.... yet offering NOTHING but your entirely baseless new personal opinion to support it. You seem obsessed by what you think what God can't do, what God is limited to going... that God is able ONLY to do what He is obligated by Law to do... and that man (and God) is unable to do anything that has not been specifically illustrated in the few examples we see in the Bible... but with NOTHING even offered to support this very restrictive, limiting new view of yours.


We've already seen where Scripture disagrees with you that there are TWO Baptisms - one involving water but no Holy Spirit, the other involving the Holy Spirit but no water. The Bible says there is ONE Baptism - so you either need to show that Baptism never has (and still doesn't) nvolved water or never has (and still doesn't) involve the Holy spirit. And you seem to insist God CANNOT be gracious except to those who are over the age of X and have given public witness to their faith. Yet God SAVES those who are DEAD so obviously you whole premise is wrong..... Scripture says that God causes the rain to fall on the just and unjust alike (and we know it falls on those under the age of X and those who have not publicly given public witness to their faith). God is NOT limited to the legal obligations..... God is NOT rendered impotent by those who are under the age of X and have not publicly given adequate witness of their faith....

Thus, baptism is not done until the individual can express to the world that s/he has experienced saving faith

Yes, that's your new view... but you've offered NOTHING WHATSOEVER to support it - at all. You opinioned that every example of Baptism in the Bible was to those over the age of X who had first publicly expressed their undying faith in Jesus - but you refuse to show that's true.... or why that even matters if it was.


Again, let's just take 1 Corinthians 1:16. Prove to us all that EVERY INDIVIDUAL MEMBER of this household FIRST attained the magical age of X and FIRST gave adequate public witness of their faith in Christ and that Paul did not baptizing them with water but rather only with the Holy Spirit. Or maybe your premise is false, you have nothing to show that Baptism was not done until the reciever first attained the age of X, first gave public adequate witness to their faith .... and that Paul never used water with any of these but ONLY baptized them with the other baptism, the dry one involving the Holy Spirit (there being two baptisms in contradiction to what Scripture flately states).

An infant is not cognitively able to express that truth

I'm not a synergist so that argument is empty and foolish to me.....



- Josiah



.

 

[atpollard]

Yes, that section does not say that anyone has righteousness because of any parent. Our righteousness is only because of Jesus who was the anticipated Messiah of the OT.

Correct, however ‘they are holy’ means ‘they are set apart’. That means that the child is part of the covenant that you ‘family baptism’ advocates are so fond of pointing to (Like how Lutherans and Presbyterians interpret Acts 2).

 

[Andrew]

My parents view of Gods salvation is that if you had an infant baptism you are good to go.
I like that simple view, they are simple people, and I'm a simple kind of man.
BUT this thread is about if the infant knows that they are being baptised, if so they must know what for... was the baby reading the bible in the womb?
Thats the original OP but you guys keep at it if God wills it, OSAS starting at the infant baptism? A lot of these little ones will grow up atheist and how does that help the body? Maybe predestination?
This thread can grow many limbs

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

Correct, however ‘they are holy’ means ‘they are set apart’. That means that the child is part of the covenant that you ‘family baptism’ advocates are so fond of pointing to (Like how Lutherans and Presbyterians interpret Acts 2).

How do Lutherans fit that bill, considering that they are as concerned to have their newborns baptized as Catholics are??

 

[Albion]

You do not know that he gives grace to infants via baptism. There is no biblical text that supports your assertion. You want it to be so. You wish it to be so, but you have no evidence..

See the following:

Acts 2:38, 22:16;
Rom. 6:1–4;
1 Cor. 6:11, 12:13;
Gal. 3:26–27;
Eph. 5:25-27;
Col. 2:11–12;
Titus 3:5;
1 Pet. 3:18–22).

All of these speak of baptism as efficacious. Study them and see if you can overcome that determination to think of Baptism as nothing other than a gesture.


1 Corinthians 6:11

but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

 

[Andrew]

Is infant baptism effective?

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

Is infant baptism effective?

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

See Post 97.

 

[Andrew]

See Post 97.

Well now I just sound like an idiot lol
Good post btw, that 97, if anything I personally feel that my infant baptism helped gear me towards the Lord in my late 20s so it was effective and predestined . Yet so many are baptised as infants and may never 'get it' or may even become be atheist or whatever, so how do you digest that brother Albion? or does it sit well with you?
I imagine grace doing it's part and those that reject are basically accepting the mark of the beast, so to speak but also literally at the same time.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk