Credobaptists - What about those with disabilities and baptism?

[atpollard]

We certainly do believe that we put on Christ by baptism. In addition, we are forgiven our sins, given grace, and made a part of the body (church) of Christ.

So EVERY baby that is baptized is one of the elect, foreknown by God before the creation of the earth and predestined for eternal life?
No Paedobaptist baby ever grows up to walk away from the faith of their parents?

(I ignored the comments on Credobaptists because I was asking about Paedobaptists.)

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

If you are forcing God to give a gift based upon your works...is it actually a gracious act...or is it an act of obligation?

Forcing one to give a gift. That's new.

 

[MennoSota]

Forcing one to give a gift. That's new.

Interestingly you never answered the question I asked Albion.
"Albion, do you believe the physical work of baptism saves the infant and invokes God's gift of grace?"
Do you often misquote in order to change the context? That is what we find happening with many who quote the scriptures so they can make it say what God never said.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I didn't misquote anything. Your suggestion was that one can be "forced" to give a gift by the recipient of that gift. It's absurd on the face of it.
A gift is freely given. If an infant receives a blanket as a gift, does it make it any less a gift because s/he is not cognizant of that fact? Did someone such as Terry Schiavo benefit any less from receiving communion and last rites because she was not cognizant of having received it? Or does the giver of the gift give of his own free will and without merit?

 

[Albion]

So EVERY baby that is baptized is one of the elect, foreknown by God before the creation of the earth and predestined for eternal life?

Nope. And I cannot even guess where you got that notion from. It looks like we should return to square one and get straight the nature of a sacrament, the meaning of the word "elect" in scripture, and other such basics, just as we had to dispel the idea that Baptism guarantees salvation and iron out what the word paedobaptism means and how it's spelled.

In the meantime, I suggest that folks not start off their posts with "So you believe...." (or something similar to that) while they are still learning what the historic Christian churches believe and practice. Just pose a question in the form of a question and we will be happy to answer.




.

 

[Josiah]

The link is that people who practice infant baptism admit it is meaningless to the infant

Wrong. I think you just make stuff up in lieu of reading what people post.....


There are a tiny, tiny FEW people (mostly Calvinists) who don't impose an age restriction on the Great Commission but consider all this as probably a waste of time. But those are a very, very small minority of non-forbidding Christians. Most trust that God will use His means according to His heart, promise and purposes.

thus it is a ceremony for parents to dedicate themselves to raising their children up to know about God.

Wrong again.


The traditional ceremony does embrace several co-requisites while imposing none as pre-requisites upon God. But embracing the corequisites is not essential to the ceremony. This can be seen in the "urgent" service, the ceremony in case of an emergency. I quoted the one from Lutheranism but it's the same for Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Methodist, Presbyterians - and it simply has applying water and pronouncing, "In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spriit.' The corequisites aren't mentioned AT ALL because theologically such is not necessary. This too proves your apologetic here is just totally wrong. You'd know that if you actually READ what people share.

So EVERY baby that is baptized is one of the elect, foreknown by God before the creation of the earth and predestined for eternal life

Arthur, once again, this is an apologetic you yourself reject. Do you mandate that all who enter your church on a Sunday morning PROVE they are among the Elect because you would render God impotent if you preach/teach the Word to one who is not Elect? No. Do Calvinist missionaries test all the people to prove they are among the Elect before they minister to them? No. So, you don't believe we are prohibited to minister to those who haven't previously proven their Elect of God status.... since you don't do that, why should everyone else? If you reject your premise, why should we accept it?


A blessed Lenten season to all.....




- Josiah



.

 

[MennoSota]

I didn't misquote anything. Your suggestion was that one can be "forced" to give a gift by the recipient of that gift. It's absurd on the face of it.
A gift is freely given. If an infant receives a blanket as a gift, does it make it any less a gift because s/he is not cognizant of that fact? Did someone such as Terry Schiavo benefit any less from receiving communion and last rites because she was not cognizant of having received it? Or does the giver of the gift give of his own free will and without merit?

Re-read the original quote without chopping it up.
Forcing God to save via infant baptism means that God salvation is not a gift...it's an obligation.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Re-read the original quote without chopping it up.

I "chopped up" the original quote because you asked a specific question of a specific person. I replied to a general statement.

Forcing God to save...

Absurd.

via infant baptism...

God's grace is given in baptism, freely, without merit. It is not forced by anything we or the Pastor/Priest/Evangelist might do

...means that God salvation is not a gift...it's an obligation.

God's grace is the gift. leaving that aside, suggesting that God is "obligated" to do anything for us is equally as absurd as suggesting he is "forced" to save by what we might or might not do (including making a declaration that we are of the 'elect' or that another is not)

 

[MennoSota]

I "chopped up" the original quote because you asked a specific question of a specific person. I replied to a general statement.



Absurd.



God's grace is given in baptism, freely, without merit. It is not forced by anything we or the Pastor/Priest/Evangelist might do



God's grace is the gift. leaving that aside, suggesting that God is "obligated" to do anything for us is equally as absurd as suggesting he is "forced" to save by what we might or might not do (including making a declaration that we are of the 'elect' or that another is not)

But God doesn't gift grace via baptism. He chooses whom he wills to give the gift of grace before baptism.
Thus, the faith of others cannot and does not invoke upon God the requirement to give the gift of grace to an infant via a baptism ceremony.
In conclusion, infant baptism is a useless practice other than giving parents the opportunity to covenant with the church to raise up their children in the knowledge of God (which is exactly what Baptist parents do in a child dedication ceremony).

 

[atpollard]

Nope. And I have not even a guess as to where you got that notion from.

From you.

I asked ...

Why do you baptize?
This is what Credobaptists expect from baptism:

1 Corinthians 12:13 NASB For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

Galatians 3:27 NASB For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

... do Paedobaptists expect this from all of their baptisms?
... does a personal faith ever come to play a part?

You replied ...

We certainly do believe that we put on Christ by baptism. In addition, we are forgiven our sins, given grace, and made a part of the body (church) of Christ.

So I believed what you said. When the infant is baptized he/she (in your words) ...
1. “put on Christ“
2. “[was] forgiven [their] sins”
3. was “given grace”
4. was “made a part of the body (church) of Christ”

and I responded with a statement affirming your claim ...

So EVERY baby that is baptized is one of the elect, foreknown by God before the creation of the earth and predestined for eternal life?
No Paedobaptist baby ever grows up to walk away from the faith of their parents?

Are you now claiming that the baby did not “put on Christ by baptism ... forgiven our sins, given grace, and made a part of the body (church) of Christ” or are you claiming that those who “put on Christ by baptism ... forgiven our sins, given grace, and made a part of the body (church) of Christ” are not “one of the elect, foreknown by God before the creation of the earth and predestined for eternal life”?

How have I misunderstood you?

 

[atpollard]

Arthur, once again, this is an apologetic you yourself reject. Do you mandate that all who enter your church on a Sunday morning PROVE they are among the Elect because you would render God impotent if you preach/teach the Word to one who is not Elect? No. Do Calvinist missionaries test all the people to prove they are among the Elect before they minister to them? No. So, you don't believe we are prohibited to minister to those who haven't previously proven their Elect of God status.... since you don't do that, why should everyone else? If you reject your premise, why should we accept it?

You are correct in saying that I reject this apologetic and I can think of no reason why you should embrace it. However post #310 outlines how this apologetic is the conclusion reached by asking Albion to explain Paedobaptism and accepting his response as accurate. He claimed that baptism “puts on Christ”, “forgives sins”, “gives grace” and makes one “part of the body of Christ”. He offered no hint that “personal faith” played any part. I simply took him at his word and equated being part of the body of Christ with salvation ... calling his attention to the claims he seemed to be making.

 

[Josiah]

Thus, the faith of others cannot and does not invoke upon God the requirement to give the gift of grace

You sure make a lot of really big dogmatic statements while offering NOTHING to support it.... you, who insist that we all totally disregard denominational spins and interpretations and just go solely by the words we find on the page of the Bible.... But all you do is verbatim parrot the denominational spin of Baptist and offer not one word from the Bible.




While I agree that the faith of others can't be transferred, I disagree with your constant limitations of what God can do... God certainly can USE the faith of parents. See the post quoted below...

Read Exodus 11 and Exodus 12...


It's the account of the last plague..... that of the first born of all..... and the whole reason of the Passover.


The First born of humans of course could have 80 years old or 8 hours old.... it made no difference whatsoever (age isn't mentioned.... it didn't matter). Age is entirely irrelevant.


See Exodus 12:21-23 The Angel of Death came to all first born, but God provided a way for the first born of the Hebrews to escape and be exempted. The parents of the first born did this .... in obedience and faith.... trusting God. And when the Angel of Death came, the Angel recognized the blood and the faith and obedience of the parents, and their child (whether 8 hours old or 8 years old or 80 years old) was saved.


COULD God has just deleted the whole bit about the Passover, the Lamb, the Blood, etc., etc., etc. and just said "I'll exempt all Hebrew first born?" Sure. But He didn't.
COULD God have said, "But don't do this unless the first born is over the age of X because the Angel wouldn't do anything to those under that age?" Yes, but He didn't.
COULD God have said, "The faith and obedience of the parents means squat so forget all about the Passover, the Lamb, the blood, the door?" Sure. But He said the opposite.

Did God USE the faith of the parents to save their first born? Yes
Was the faith/obedience of the parents entirely irrelevant, useless and if they had done anything, God would have been rendered impotent to save those children? Nope.

Did the faith of the parents save their children? No (God did).
But did God use what He commanded the parents to do? Obviously yes.



The Bible clearly states that all humans are sinful - and deserving of the Angel of Death and Hell itself. Not just first born, but all born.
COULD God have just said, "Yeah, but no biggie.... I'll just wink at sin and forget all I said about it until the person reaches their X birthday (and I won't tell you what birthday that is). But He didn't.



One COULD believe that God nonetheless does that in every case of every person (Hindu, Atheist whatever) even though there's NOTHING that REMOTELY states that. One could even believe that children should be killed prior to that age as the only way to guarentee Heaven for them. But again, there's nothing in Scripture, nothing in the life of the church for over 1500 years, nothing that remotely indicates that is the truth.

We are told to GO.... Baptize..... Teach.
We do have Christians at least from 63 AD doing that for their children.
They saw the promise "for you and your children."
It was something done in faith, as family, in community.
Every faithful, Christian parent proceeded in faith and obedience for their children until 1523 when one German invented a dogma that says, "Thou art FORBIDDEN to do that!"




.

- Josiah



.

 

[Albion]

However post #310 outlines how this apologetic is the conclusion reached by asking Albion to explain Paedobaptism and accepting his response as accurate. He claimed that baptism “puts on Christ”, “forgives sins”, “gives grace” and makes one “part of the body of Christ”. He offered no hint that “personal faith” played any part. I simply took him at his word and equated being part of the body of Christ with salvation ... calling his attention to the claims he seemed to be making.

FWIW, 'personal faith playing any part' wouldn't have answered the question that was asked and which I was answering. By contrast, all the other points that you made mention of here WERE answers to the question that WAS asked.

I simply took him at his word and equated being part of the body of Christ with salvation .

You certainly did not 'take me at my word' with this. As you (just) said, I did not comment on the matter of personal faith. You are not at liberty to think that I agree with your theology because of something I did NOT say and had no reason to comment on!

For you to talk as though I am responsible for your unwarranted assumptions is enough to make me wonder if I'm dealing with someone who simply does not want to understand.

Incidentally, the question of personal faith was brought up several times earlier and the paedobaptists here answered that question, so I'm surprised that it is back again.




.

 

[atpollard]

FWIW, 'personal faith playing any part' wouldn't have answered the question that was asked and which I was answering. By contrast, all the other points that you made mention of here WERE answers to the question that WAS asked.

You certainly did not 'take me at my word' with this. As you (just) said, I did not comment on the matter of personal faith. You are not at liberty to think that I agree with your theology because of something I did NOT say and had no reason to comment on!

For you to talk as though I am responsible for your unwarranted assumptions is enough to make me wonder if I'm dealing with someone who simply does not want to understand.

Incidentally, the question of personal faith was brought up several times earlier and the paedobaptists here answered that question, so I'm surprised that it is back again.
.

Post #311 was directed at Josiah in response to a comment directly from him. You should respond to Post #310 which was directed at your comments. This all started when I did try to ask Paedobaptists to explain what they believed about baptism and if faith played any part. You chose to respond and I drew conclusions based on your response. Post #310 quotes the string of relevant posts with a narrative explaining how they are related.

Yet you ignore the post in in direct response to you and respond to a post directed to a comment by Josiah instead.
I can’t help but feel that you are simply wasting my time disagreeing without actually exchanging any communication.
I no longer care about your ever-shifting unsupported, unexplained opinions.

 

[Josiah]

Just to enter into the record....

Here are MARTIN LUTHER'S views (not necessarily those of Lutheranism):


Errors Personally Rejected by Luther:

That infants and children before the age of reason cannot have saving faith.
That children are saved by the faith of the sponsors.
That children are saved by the faith of the church.
That children are saved by the power of the sacrament.
That in baptism children are brought to the Gospel and the church but are not saved because they cannot have faith.
That there are two kinds of baptism, one for adults and another for children.
That the words of Christ to "Suffer the little children to come unto me" mean spiritual children who are small in humility.
That adult "reason" is necessary for faith.

Truths Personally Affirmed by Luther

That Christ commanded us to bring the children to Him.
That infants acquire faith as a gift of God.
That this faith is for salvation (not one of intellectual understanding, comprehension or facts, but the gift of God, Ephesians 2;8-9).
That the Lord's standard is not that of adult intellectual faith, but that adults must become as little children.
That this faith appropriates the blessings of Baptism.
That this baptism is the same baptism for children and adults.
That there is no salvation apart from faith in Christ, even with baptism. Faith is the hand that reaches into the waters of baptism and retrieves the pearl of salvation.
[Note: Luther teaches that true baptism is water connected with the Word of God. When properly administered in connection with the Word it is always a Godly baptism, even if the candidate lacks faith. The lack of faith, however, means the benefits of baptism are not appropriated to him. When that person genuinely believes, the benefits of baptism are applied to him, it is not necessary to be rebaptized. Luther is NOT suggesting to baptize someone whom we know to be without faith, he is saying only that the problem is not in the Baptism, but in the lack of faith. How can we know if an infant has faith? We cannot know with certainty, just as as we cannot know whether an adult profession is genuine. With an adult we look at his life and hear his confession, his testimony and on that basis we believe he has faith. With an infant we look at the parents and sponsors, as Luther puts it the "alien faith" and trust God's promises that He receives the children brought to Him and brings them into the Kingdom Of God as He promised.]



.

 

[Pedrito]

Albion in Post #282:

Then there is no "age of accountability."

The term means that there is a standard established for all which represents the age at which a human being is thought capable of properly receiving the sacrament.

So a standard does exist. The concept is thus acknowledged. The acknowledgement is acknowledged.

Meluckycharms in Post #290:

…I do believe that there is an age of accountability, however, only God and the individual knows exactly when and where that taken place...

Similarly acknowledged. The general concept does exist.

...Thus, age of accountability is not necessarily required to establish for baptismal purposes. But rather to establish that infant baptism is unnessary to save the soul of the infant. Lest we fall into concluding that stillborn children or dead unbaptized babies are in hell.

So, what is the purpose of infant baptism, if it has no effect on a child’s salvation?

Albion in Post #298:

We certainly do believe that we put on Christ by baptism. In addition, we are forgiven our sins, given grace, and made a part of the body (church) of Christ.

So infant baptism does have an effect on a child’s salvation.

(Do Readers detect a hint of inconsistency within the camp?)

==============================================================================================

Maybe we should simply identify where in the Bible that concept (age of accountability – either as practiced with respect to organisational ritual, or as pertaining to individual humans) is taught with respect to the salvation "wrought in Christ".

You never know. What if that leads to clarification of not only the state of babies, but also the state of those with disabilities?

Wouldn't that be great?

Can someone please help with that?

 

[atpollard]

[Note: Luther teaches that true baptism is water connected with the Word of God. When properly administered in connection with the Word it is always a Godly baptism, even if the candidate lacks faith. The lack of faith, however, means the benefits of baptism are not appropriated to him. When that person genuinely believes, the benefits of baptism are applied to him, it is not necessary to be rebaptized. Luther is NOT suggesting to baptize someone whom we know to be without faith, he is saying only that the problem is not in the Baptism, but in the lack of faith. How can we know if an infant has faith? We cannot know with certainty, just as as we cannot know whether an adult profession is genuine. With an adult we look at his life and hear his confession, his testimony and on that basis we believe he has faith. With an infant we look at the parents and sponsors, as Luther puts it the "alien faith" and trust God's promises that He receives the children brought to Him and brings them into the Kingdom Of God as He promised.]

Not that I agree (which makes sense since I am not a Lutheran), but at least it addresses the relationship between baptism, faith and salvation with respect to infants. I notice that the parenthetical comment does not appear to be by Martin Luther. It makes clear that not all babies have faith and that God determines which baptisms are ‘effective’. Without that parenthetical explanation, one might conclude from the shorter statements attributed to Luther that all baptisms result in faith.

I only point this out because this is an accusation commonly made against Paedobaptists and vehemently denied by them. It is easy to see where the potential misunderstandings can come from.

 

[Albion]

I can’t help but feel that you are simply wasting my time disagreeing without actually exchanging any communication.
I no longer care about your ever-shifting unsupported, unexplained opinions.

I can appreciate how frustrated you must feel, being incapable of understanding even rather rudimentary theological concepts. And that comment of yours above certainly shows the frustration and confusion. I choose not to explain the point yet one more time, however, and it cannot be simplified any further than has already been done.

 

[Albion]

So a standard does exist. The concept is thus acknowledged. The acknowledgement is acknowledged.

No, there is no age of accountability for baptisms. Read what I wrote--the TERM MEANS that there is a standard age. But it does not apply to the churches which baptize without regard to the candidate's age. We do not adhere to an age of accountability in the case of baptisms. This has been explained repeatedly.

So, what is the purpose of infant baptism

That has already been answered. You just referred to that answer in your reply. See post 298 again.

 

[meluckycharms]

No, there is no age of accountability for baptisms. Read what I wrote--the TERM MEANS that there is a standard age. But it does not apply to the churches which baptize without regard to the candidate's age. We do not adhere to an age of accountability in the case of baptisms. This has been explained repeatedly.



That has already been answered. You just referred to that answer in your reply. See post 298 again.

I am glad that this is not my problem to figure out. At this point, I am just here for the cookies and coffee.