Can Babies Believe?

[Josiah]

Was he (John the Baptist) the only one he did this too? If so then it was a special case.

I know of no other case of a pre-born child in the womb being given faith that's recorded in the Bible.... but that hardly means it's the only one and it hardly proves that God is impotent to give faith to those under the age of X who have not first wept buckets of tears in repentance, attained a certain IQ and educational level and understanding, etc.

And of course, David states that he believed "from his mother's womb." Doesn't say BEFORE his birth, but it does say from the time of his birth. Again, it doesn't say that ALL people are given faith at birth but it does indicate that God is NOT impotent to give faith to those prior to their achieving a certain age, IQ, education and cognative understanding.

And of course, we have several cases where Jesus speaks of "little children who believe in me." Jesus makes it plural.


- Josiah

 

[MennoSota]

I know of no other case of a pre-born child in the womb being given faith that's recorded in the Bible.... but that hardly means it's the only one and it hardly proves that God is impotent to give faith to those under the age of X who have not first wept buckets of tears in repentance, attained a certain IQ and educational level and understanding, etc.

And of course, David states that he believed "from his mother's womb." Doesn't say BEFORE his birth, but it does say from the time of his birth. Again, it doesn't say that ALL people are given faith at birth but it does indicate that God is NOT impotent to give faith to those prior to their achieving a certain age, IQ, education and cognative understanding.

And of course, we have several cases where Jesus speaks of "little children who believe in me." Jesus makes it plural.


- Josiah

It also hardly gives us the mandate to baptize babies just because a denomination and parents desire to force God into making baptism a means of grace.
There are many people to whom God gives the gift of faith at varying timelines. In each case, in the Bible, there are Godly people who recognize that the gift of faith is manifest in the person.
Josiah, what test is available to Godly people so we can declare that an infant has been given the gift of faith? How can we measure this in a newborn?
One of God's gift to the church is the gift of discernment. By what means can we discern that a newborn has been gifted with faith?
I am stumped as to that method of discernment, but perhaps you have a word from God that we have missed.

 

[Josiah]

It also hardly gives us the mandate to baptize babies just because a denomination and parents desire to force God into making baptism a means of grace.

No. The traditional/historic/orthodox view does not tell God what to do and what He cannot do (that's the Anabaptist obsession). The universal historic view (from at least 63 AD) is that God commands us to go, baptize and teach, there is no divine PROHIBITION to such things (the obsession of the Anabaptists), nothing that indicates God is rendered impotent by these things. We place this all in the context of family and community, and we trust God to do as His will and heart direct. NO commands made on God, not prohibitions placed on God (that's the Anabaptist obsession and dogma). By the way, we also teach our children - not because we are forcing God to do anything but because we believe that the Word does not return to Him void (He's NOT rendered impotent by what we do and by physical things like the Bible) but it accomplishes all for which He sends it (through us).

There are many people to whom God gives the gift of faith at varying timelines

Nearly always via some means..... Exceptions MIGHT be John the Baptist who was given faith while still in his mother's womb (thus having NOT yet celebrated his Xth birth and likely having NOT first wept buckets of tears in repentance, chanted the Sinner's Prayer and first given adequate, public proof of having chosen Jesus as his personal Savior). David had faith from his birth according to his Psalm (thus having NOT yet celebrated his Xth birth and likely having NOT first wept buckets of tears in repentance, chanted the Sinner's Prayer and first given adequate, public proof of having chosen Jesus as his personal Savior). The traditional/orthodox/historic view on this does not prohibit God from using means to give faith, that's the Anabaptist view.

In each case, in the Bible, there are Godly people who recognize that the gift of faith is manifest in the person

Read Psalm 22:9-10 YEARS later, David did too (he also made manifest his sin). But did he do so at his birth? Was God impotent to give David faith at his birth because David had not FIRST made manifest his faith? Odd you - who claims to be a monergist - would insist we FIRST must make adequate, public proof of our faith before God can give us faith...

Josiah, what test is available to Godly people so we can declare that an infant has been given the gift of faith? How can we measure this in a newborn?

Rather than substantiating the whole dogmatic invention of the Anabaptist/Baptist that there is a long step-by-step chain of stuff that must be done in a certain chronological sequence or God is rendered impotent, you simply are trying to impose that on ME and asking ME to prove it for you. Friend, the vast majority of Christians (ALL before 1523) DISAGREE with this silly, very limited view of God. I won't defend this radical invention of synergism, I DISAGREE with it.

And so do you. Because next Sunday, do you have an armed guard at the door of your church insisting that all who enter FIRST must give adequate, public PROOF that they have faith? Do they need to bring a birth certificate to prove they are past the age of X? Do they need to give proof that they have wept buckets of tears in repentance and have chanted the Sinner's Prayer? Nope. You WELCOME all to come.... and you WELCOME parents to bring their children so as to receive the means of Grace. It's just you insist that there is some verse that says "Thou are FORBIDDEN to baptize - a PROHIBITION is placed on this - unless and until FIRST the person proves they have celebrated their Xth birthday, then prove they have at least X level of understanding, then prove they have wept X number of tears in repentance, then prove they chose Jesus as their personal savior, then made adequate public proof of such... ONLY AFTER each step has been fulfilled and completed and proven, only then is my PROHIBTION on Baptism lifted! But don't bother because God can't use Baptism for nothing anyway, it's a waste of time.' Anabaptists/Baptists insist that verse exists but in 500 years, none of them has yet found it.



.

 

[atpollard]

... also by David:

Psalm 51:5 NASB Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

I tend to tread with care when building a theology from the Psalms.
YMMV

 

[Josiah]

... also by David:

Psalm 51:5 NASB Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

Yup, there goes the Anabaptist/Baptist invention of "Age of Accountability" and repudiation of original sin....

Perhaps the reason God gave faith to David from his birth is because there was something he needed to be saved from (as well as to)...

But I think you are evading the point: David's age did not render God impotent. David had not yet jumped through all the hoops that Anabaptists tend to insist (in their radical synergism) MUST be accomplished in a very prescribed step-by-step chronological sequence or God is impotent to save and bless. I think you are evading the point that Anabaptists make (including in this thread) that God cannot give faith unless and until a bunch of hoops have been adequately jumped through.... and the thus mandated repudiation of original sin (replaced with "The Age of Accountability") and Total Depravity.

 

[atpollard]

Yup, there goes the Anabaptist/Baptist invention of "Age of Accountability" and repudiation of original sin....
Perhaps the reason God gave faith to David from his birth is because there was something he needed to be saved from (as well as to)...

But I think you are evading the point: David's age did not render God impotent. David had not yet jumped through all the hoops that Anabaptists tend to insist (in their radical synergism) MUST be accomplished in a very prescribed step-by-step chronological sequence or God is impotent to save and bless. I think you are evading the point that Anabaptists make (including in this thread) that God cannot give faith unless and until a bunch of hoops have been adequately jumped through.... and the thus mandated repudiation of original sin (replaced with "The Age of Accountability") and Total Depravity.

Actually, it is unfair to accuse me of evading the point.
The topic asks "CAN BABIES BELIEVE?"

I have already stated that the question of 'Can God do (insert anything)?' is meaningless. God, by definition, can do anything he desires. What GOD can do does not prove that SOME babies believe, or MOST babies believe or ALL babies believe or NO babies believe. I have no evidence to indicate that babies (in general) believe. I have no evidence to indicate that babies (in general) do not believe. I have nothing to contribute to the topic. I have observed that babies do not speak, and there is limited communication possible with a baby, but that is not proof.

However, you chose to build an argument on one statement in Psalms from David that you claim proves David believed from birth and I presented another statement in Psalms where David appears to contradict that.
I made no Credobaptist point, only a personal observation that I use the Psalms with caution when supporting theology (for exactly the reason pointed out by two apparently contradictory quotes from David).

Your stating that nobody had proven what God cannot do, is also not proof that babies believe. God could save everyone making the Universalists correct, but that does not prove that God has saved everyone (and scripture tells us that many will go to eternal punishment).

[If all of the topics are going to be about proving an Anabaptist verse, then they might as well be merged. This is about "Can babies Believe?" ... What BABIES can do, not what God can do.]

James 2:19-20 NASB 19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?

So is a baby capable of believing like a demon believes, or like a person with a 'dead faith' believes?

Can Babies Believe?

 

[MennoSota]

No. The traditional/historic/orthodox view does not tell God what to do and what He cannot do (that's the Anabaptist obsession). The universal historic view (from at least 63 AD) is that God commands us to go, baptize and teach, there is no divine PROHIBITION to such things (the obsession of the Anabaptists), nothing that indicates God is rendered impotent by these things. We place this all in the context of family and community, and we trust God to do as His will and heart direct. NO commands made on God, not prohibitions placed on God (that's the Anabaptist obsession and dogma). By the way, we also teach our children - not because we are forcing God to do anything but because we believe that the Word does not return to Him void (He's NOT rendered impotent by what we do and by physical things like the Bible) but it accomplishes all for which He sends it (through us).






Nearly always via some means..... Exceptions MIGHT be John the Baptist who was given faith while still in his mother's womb (thus having NOT yet celebrated his Xth birth and likely having NOT first wept buckets of tears in repentance, chanted the Sinner's Prayer and first given adequate, public proof of having chosen Jesus as his personal Savior). David had faith from his birth according to his Psalm (thus having NOT yet celebrated his Xth birth and likely having NOT first wept buckets of tears in repentance, chanted the Sinner's Prayer and first given adequate, public proof of having chosen Jesus as his personal Savior). The traditional/orthodox/historic view on this does not prohibit God from using means to give faith, that's the Anabaptist view.






Read Psalm 22:9-10 YEARS later, David did too (he also made manifest his sin). But did he do so at his birth? Was God impotent to give David faith at his birth because David had not FIRST made manifest his faith? Odd you - who claims to be a monergist - would insist we FIRST must make adequate, public proof of our faith before God can give us faith...







Rather than substantiating the whole dogmatic invention of the Anabaptist/Baptist that there is a long step-by-step chain of stuff that must be done in a certain chronological sequence or God is rendered impotent, you simply are trying to impose that on ME and asking ME to prove it for you. Friend, the vast majority of Christians (ALL before 1523) DISAGREE with this silly, very limited view of God. I won't defend this radical invention of synergism, I DISAGREE with it.

And so do you. Because next Sunday, do you have an armed guard at the door of your church insisting that all who enter FIRST must give adequate, public PROOF that they have faith? Do they need to bring a birth certificate to prove they are past the age of X? Do they need to give proof that they have wept buckets of tears in repentance and have chanted the Sinner's Prayer? Nope. You WELCOME all to come.... and you WELCOME parents to bring their children so as to receive the means of Grace. It's just you insist that there is some verse that says "Thou are FORBIDDEN to baptize - a PROHIBITION is placed on this - unless and until FIRST the person proves they have celebrated their Xth birthday, then prove they have at least X level of understanding, then prove they have wept X number of tears in repentance, then prove they chose Jesus as their personal savior, then made adequate public proof of such... ONLY AFTER each step has been fulfilled and completed and proven, only then is my PROHIBTION on Baptism lifted! But don't bother because God can't use Baptism for nothing anyway, it's a waste of time.' Anabaptists/Baptists insist that verse exists but in 500 years, none of them has yet found it.



.

Long story short: You have no test available.
There is no need to go on your irrelevant tangents.
We cannot measure if a newborn has been given the gift of faith.
We cannot invoke baptism as a means of grace. (Only God can choose to grant grace and faith.)
Can God give the gift of faith at any time from conception to death? Sure. That's an easy answer.
Can Christians discern if a newborn has been gifted with faith? No we cannot.

 

[Josiah]

What GOD can do does not prove that SOME babies believe

... and obviously, no one remotely suggested that.

I think the opening post destroys the dogmatic invention of Anabaptists that God cannot save those under the age of X because they don't yet have the ability to do their part in the salvation of themselves. We get things such as "They cannot yet understand." "They cannot yet choose Jesus as their personal Savior." "They cannot chant the Sinner's Prayer." "They cannot adequately and publicly prove that they chose Jesus as their Savior." "They cannot yet weep buckets of tears in repentance." "They cannot yet adequately respond to an Altar Call" etc., etc., etc., etc;, etc. You know, the things Anabaptists insist upon in every discussion relating to children. And there is an underlining assumption here: God can't if we can't.


I think the opening post proves that God is not rendered impotent by a humans age.... I think it proves that God CAN give faith even without a person FIRST (in a mandate chronological sequence) attaining the age of X, THEN attaining the understanding -education - IQ of X, THEN weaping "X" number of tears in repentance, THEN choosing Jesus as their personal Savior, THEN chanting the Sinner's Prayer, THEN giving adequate public proof of that..... THEN all the barriers to God are removed and FINALLY God can give faith.

MOST babies believe or ALL babies believe

You misread the title of this thread. It's not "Do ALL babies believe?" No. It's "CAN babies believe?" If they can.... then there goes the Anabaptist/Baptist apologetic.

I have no evidence to indicate that babies (in general) believe

I have no evidence to indicates that humans (in general) believe.

Does that mean that ERGO God is impotent to save? That these people have not yet jumped through a bunch of hoops in the exact, mandated, one-by-one, chronological sequence so that God is no longer impotent to bless and save? That humans can't be given faith, can't be saved?

However, you chose to build an argument on one statement in Psalms from David that you claim proves David believed from birth and I presented another statement in Psalms where David appears to contradict that.

No, friend, you have not. Psalm 22:9-10 says David had faith from his birth. The other simply contradicts the Anabaptist dogma of anti-original sin; it simply points out what the Bible so often teaches: that those with faith still have sin. SAINT Paul (you'd agree that he had received the gift of faith) says he is the CHIEF of sinners. Friend, it is not a contradiction to say one has faith but has sin - it's what the Bible says is the case. You didn't prove that David had no faith (because he had sin) anymore than you proved that SAINT Paul had no faith because he had sin. As Lutherans and Calvinists proclaim, Christians are "simul justus et peccator." Where you are AGAIN running into problems is TRYING to be both a Calvinist (who hold to original sin, total depravity and monergism) and an Anabaptist (who deny original sin, total depravity and are radical synergists).


You simply have supplied nothing to indicate that all the things God calls for MUST be performed in some divinely mandated chronological sequence or God is impotent to use them for His purposes.... nothing to support that we do NOT have corequisites (as you once claimed but abandoned) but rather a long chain of divinely mandated by the words of the Bible of steps that must be in a certain chronological sequence or God is impotent. Where is this general PROHIBITION to baptize?



.

 

[Josiah]

No. The traditional/historic/orthodox view does not tell God what to do and what He cannot do (that's the Anabaptist obsession). The universal historic view (from at least 63 AD) is that God commands us to go, baptize and teach, there is no divine PROHIBITION to such things (the obsession of the Anabaptists), nothing that indicates God is rendered impotent by these things. We place this all in the context of family and community, and we trust God to do as His will and heart direct. NO commands made on God, not prohibitions placed on God (that's the Anabaptist obsession and dogma). By the way, we also teach our children - not because we are forcing God to do anything but because we believe that the Word does not return to Him void (He's NOT rendered impotent by what we do and by physical things like the Bible) but it accomplishes all for which He sends it (through us).






Nearly always via some means..... Exceptions MIGHT be John the Baptist who was given faith while still in his mother's womb (thus having NOT yet celebrated his Xth birth and likely having NOT first wept buckets of tears in repentance, chanted the Sinner's Prayer and first given adequate, public proof of having chosen Jesus as his personal Savior). David had faith from his birth according to his Psalm (thus having NOT yet celebrated his Xth birth and likely having NOT first wept buckets of tears in repentance, chanted the Sinner's Prayer and first given adequate, public proof of having chosen Jesus as his personal Savior). The traditional/orthodox/historic view on this does not prohibit God from using means to give faith, that's the Anabaptist view.






Read Psalm 22:9-10 YEARS later, David did too (he also made manifest his sin). But did he do so at his birth? Was God impotent to give David faith at his birth because David had not FIRST made manifest his faith? Odd you - who claims to be a monergist - would insist we FIRST must make adequate, public proof of our faith before God can give us faith...







Rather than substantiating the whole dogmatic invention of the Anabaptist/Baptist that there is a long step-by-step chain of stuff that must be done in a certain chronological sequence or God is rendered impotent, you simply are trying to impose that on ME and asking ME to prove it for you. Friend, the vast majority of Christians (ALL before 1523) DISAGREE with this silly, very limited view of God you promote. I won't defend this radical invention of synergism, I DISAGREE with it.

And so do you. Because next Sunday, do you have an armed guard at the door of your church insisting that all who enter FIRST must give adequate, public PROOF that they have faith? Do they need to bring a birth certificate to prove they are past the age of X? Do they need to give proof that they have wept buckets of tears in repentance and have chanted the Sinner's Prayer? Nope. You WELCOME all to come.... and you WELCOME parents to bring their children so as to receive the means of Grace. It's just you insist that there is some verse that says "Thou are FORBIDDEN to baptize - a PROHIBITION is placed on this - unless and until FIRST the person proves they have celebrated their Xth birthday, then prove they have at least X level of understanding, then prove they have wept X number of tears in repentance, then prove they chose Jesus as their personal savior, then made adequate public proof of such... ONLY AFTER each step has been fulfilled and completed and proven, only then is my PROHIBITION on Baptism lifted! But don't bother because God can't use Baptism for nothing anyway, it's a waste of time.' Anabaptists/Baptists insist that verse exists but in 500 years, none of them has yet found it.



.

Long story short: You have no test available.

Long story short, I don't NEED to prove your silly theology - I DISAGREE with it.

Read what you quoted from me.

We cannot measure if a newborn has been given the gift of faith.

You won't prove that such is a mandate.

BTW, we cannot measure if an adult has been given faith, either. They can profess - but we have no way to know if such is correct. But again, since you can't and won't give substantiation that we must PROVE a person has faith BEFORE we can baptize, it's not up to me to prove that point for you.... I don't agree with it, I DISAGREE with it. What part of that don't you understand?




.

 

[atpollard]

You should rename the Topic to:

"Destroying the dogmatic invention of Anabaptists that God cannot save those under the age of X"

Then we would not come here expecting to talk about "Can babies believe?"

 

[MennoSota]

Long story short, I don't NEED to prove your silly theology - I DISAGREE with it.

Read what you quoted from me.






You won't prove that such is a mandate.

BTW, we cannot measure if an adult has been given faith, either. They can profess - but we have no way to know if such is correct. But again, since you can't and won't give substantiation that we must PROVE a person has faith BEFORE we can baptize, it's not up to me to prove that point for you.... I don't agree with it, I DISAGREE with it. What part of that don't you understand?




.

Sure we can measure it. We can discern the spirit and actions of a person. The Apostles did this when they asked if there was any reason why the gentiles should not be baptized.
Josiah, if you care nothing about the character of a person then go baptize anyone who is willing to let you sprinkle them. You can worry about their eternity later...or never...because you've fulfilled the great commission in your own mind.

 

[Josiah]

go baptize anyone who is willing to let you sprinkle them. You can worry about their eternity later...or never...because you've fulfilled the great commission in your own mind.

Sure. because I believe GOD GIVES faith, always in spite of them never deserving it - just needing it.

True, I don't take responsibility for the justification of others because I'm the Savior of no one (job's taken). I let God "worry" (if He does.... which I doubt....).

You can't ever know if someone actually believes.... but that doesn't bother you so I'm not sure why you think it should bother everyone else. Evidently, you think people need to MERIT the gift of faith, I just think they need to NEED it (but then I'm a monergist).

You want ME to prove that the prerequsites invented by some German in 1523 are required before the claimed PROHIBITION to baptism is lifted.... I don't need to prove that since I don't have the dogma that there are all those prohibitions and prerequisites. Since you can't substantiate these invented prerequisites invented out of thin air in 1523 are in fact divinely mandated, that's your problem.... you shouldn't require ME to prove a point you can't and I don't accept.



Blessings on your Lenten season...



- Josiah




.

 

[Josiah]

CAN babies be given faith OR can God not do this because some quality is missing in the receiver that makes it impossible for God?

Does the receiver of this gift need to achieve a certain age or IQ or educational level or emotional state - filling necessary prerequisites - before God is able to give faith?

Luke 1:41


"And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit"

John clearly had faith even before birth.



Psalm 22:9-10


"Yet You are he who took me from the womb;
You made me trust You at my mother's breasts.
On You was I cast from my birth,
and from my mother's womb You have been my God."

In this Psalm, David discusses his faith, and in doing so references the fact that he had faith at a time when he was still nursing. How is this possible? The answer is just as clear, "you made me trust you." In Reformation theology, faith is a gift of God. It is not a human achievement, not something that one chooses out of a free will. If this were so, then infant faith would be impossible. But according to a monergistic scheme, faith is a divine gift, a divine work through the operation of the Holy Spirit. This being the case, why is it not possible that God could do such a work for an infant?



Matthew 18:1-6


"At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a little child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."

This text demonstrates that children can and do believe at a young age. The greek term used here "παιδία" usually has reference to an infant or young child.

There is a parallel text in Luke 18:15-17

"Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a little child shall not enter it.”

This text is significant because it uses the term "βρέφη" which refers to infants rather to children in general. Jesus plainly admits in this text that infants can obtain the kingdom of God. How does one obtain the kingdom of God? Through faith. If children cannot be given faith, then they cannot enter the Kingdom of God and yet Jesus says....

Some might argue that this is an invalid argument because the point Jesus is making is not about infant faith and salvation, but about humility. He is using a child merely as an illustration. Even if this is the case, this does not negate the fact that the illustration is real. Even is he is primarily making the point that becoming like a child is necessary to enter the kingdom, this is only the case because children indeed do have faith. He says that "to such belongs the kingdom of God." This includes both infants and those who approach God with faith.

Similarly, Mark 10:13-16

"And they were bringing little children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the little children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them."

Thus it is apparent that infants can have faith. There are numerous examples of this such as in the case of John the Baptist and David. This is clear due to the nature of faith as a gift. If faith as a divine act of the Spirit, surely it can be applied to infants. Finally, this is demonstrated by the fact that Jesus says that infants and small children can have faith and enter the kingdom of God.


Now, it is unlikely that John the Baptist before he was born or the "παιδία" (infants) Jesus speaks of could chant some litany of repentance or the Sinner's Prayer but this doesn't seem to render God impotent to give the gift of faith.



- Josiah



,