Can babies be conscious of their baptism?

[MennoSota]

1.WHAT BLESSINGS DO WE RECEIVE FROM GOD IN BAPTISM?

1 Peter 3:20-21. … in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it a few people, eight in all, were saved through water — and this water symbolizes Baptism that now saves you also.

Colossians 2:11-12. In Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in Baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Romans 6:3-10. Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through Baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.

* Note: These passages from Colossians and Romans are summarized well by Dr. Lowell Green: “Baptism is the retroactive participation in the work of Good Friday and Easter Sunday — even better, it is incorporation into the body of the risen and ascended Savior ...”

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

Eph. 5:26. Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word.

Titus 3:5. He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.

Corinthians 12:13. 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.

1 Corinthians 6:11. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Acts 22:16. And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.

Acts 2:37-39. Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

Mark 16:16. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

* Note: In these passages, the Word of God associates Baptism with dying and rising with Christ, being clothed with Christ, being cleansed and made holy by Christ, having sins washed away, receiving the Holy Spirit, being regenerated (reborn) and renewed, receiving the forgiveness of sins, and being saved.

Note: Not one of those verses or passages talks about infants being baptized. Why do you insist on forcing a church dogma into scripture?

 

[Lamb]

Note: Not one of those verses or passages talks about infants being baptized. Why do you insist on forcing a church dogma into scripture?

Not one of those verses insist that babies can't be baptized either and yet we see in Acts that it's for our children!

 

[MennoSota]

Not one of those verses insist that babies can't be baptized either and yet we see in Acts that it's for our children!

Do we make the same assumptions with other verses as well? Because the thing you want isn't actually stated, does that mean we can just say it is so?
I'm amazed at the amount of forcing that is required to make infant baptism a dogma.

 

[Albion]

Note: Not one of those verses or passages talks about infants being baptized. Why do you insist on forcing a church dogma into scripture?

Because, according to the New Testament, it is almost certain that children below the age of being able to understand anything like accepting the Lord and renouncing sin, etc. WERE baptized.

 

[MennoSota]

Because, according to the New Testament, it is almost certain that children below the age of being able to understand anything like accepting the Lord and renouncing sin, etc. WERE baptized.

You are completely speculating. There were likely dogs and other animals in the household as well. Since the words "entire household" is used, did the animals get baptized as well?
We should be very careful in turning speculation into church dogma.

 

[MennoSota]

.

 

[Albion]

You are completely speculating..

No, I was addressing your point. There is a reason for the baptism of small children, and it is because of the testimony of Scripture.

I did not set out to rehash everything that has already been written here a dozen times, but just to answer the question. We baptize the young because of the Bible accounts of baptisms performed. That really is the determiner--custom, popular opinion, or any other factor aside.

 

[MennoSota]

No, I was addressing your point. There is a reason for the baptism of small children, and it is because of the testimony of Scripture.

I did not set out to rehash everything that has already been written here a dozen times, but just to answer the question. We baptize the young because of the Bible accounts of baptisms performed. That really is the determiner--custom, popular opinion, or any other factor aside.

Correction. You have created a speculative reason for baptizing infants based on very sketchy hermaneutics. The scripture never testifies to infant baptism...ever. You just can't find it. But...you sure can speculate and extrapolate an entire dogma from the phrase "entire household."
It would be great if you would honestly admit the weakness of your scriptural references as they relate to infants.

 

[Albion]

The scripture never testifies to infant baptism...ever.

Oh yes it does. And, as said before, that is the reason we baptize infants and younger children. Were it not for the Biblical directive, the practice wouldn't be as it is.

Yes, there are denominations which base their dogma on a cherry-picking of Scripture, and if you side with them, that is your choice. I was just explaining, in reply to a challenge here, why 90% of all Christians of all time do and have done as they do on this matter.

 

[MennoSota]

Oh yes it does. And, as said before, that is the reason we baptize infants and younger children. Were it not for the Biblical directive, the practice wouldn't be as it is.

Yes, there are denominations which base their dogma on a cherry-picking of Scripture, and if you side with them, that is your choice. I was just explaining, in reply to a challenge here, why 90% of all Christians of all time do and have done as they do on this matter.

Wrong. There is not one verse that speaks of infants being baptized. Not one. Therefore you are entirely speculating.
You hold to a church dogma, not a biblical mandate.

 

[Albion]

Wrong. There is not one verse that speaks of infants being baptized. Not one. Therefore you are entirely speculating.
You hold to a church dogma, not a biblical mandate.

You said all that before and it was wrong then, too.

Are you going for another round? Here, let me make it easy for you...

Dogma
Speculation
Dogma
Speculation
Denomination
No grace
Dogma








.

 

[psalms 91]

I have nothing in this but you keep saying he is wrong when he says that there is no verse that talks of infant baptism, if there is please show me as I am not aware of it either.

 

[MennoSota]

You said all that before and it was wrong then, too.

Are you going for another round? Here, let me make it easy for you...

Dogma
Speculation
Dogma
Speculation
Denomination

Albion. It is a scientific fact that infants are never mentioned in the Bible in relation to baptism. It is a scientific fact that the Bible never once speaks to infants being baptized.
You cannot factually say I am wrong when ALL the facts prove you are making infant baptism up from a denominational tradition not from the Bible.
Your stubbornness is obvious. Let's end your circle of false claims right now rather than have you claim something from the figment of your imagination as being fact as you are repeating ad naseum.

 

[Albion]

You cannot factually say I am wrong when ALL the facts prove you are making infant baptism up from a denominational tradition not from the Bible..

Baloney. That is flatly untrue, and you should be ashamed of yourself for personalizing every discussion, particularly when you have no idea whatsoever what the religious backgrounds of most of us actually are.

 

[MennoSota]

Baloney. That is flatly untrue, and you should be ashamed of yourself for personalizing every discussion, particularly when you have no idea whatsoever what the religious backgrounds of most of us actually are.

Show the facts then.
I know you cannot factually show a Bible verse where an infant is being baptized. You have to make an inference from a vague phrase.
Since you literally have no factual evidence from scripture, please have the courtesy of admitting your argument comes entirely from tradition developed in church denomination.

 

[Lamb]

Show the facts then.
I know you cannot factually show a Bible verse where an infant is being baptized. You have to make an inference from a vague phrase.
Since you literally have no factual evidence from scripture, please have the courtesy of admitting your argument comes entirely from tradition developed in church denomination.

A vague reference is all you complain about even though it's shown that baptism is "for your children" in Acts 2. You also need to put on the community and family mindset of those times instead of modern individual thinking otherwise you'll continue to persist in denying what baptism is truly about...God's work. The Jews would have been horrified if their children weren't included in any of God's promises.

 

[MennoSota]

A vague reference is all you complain about even though it's shown that baptism is "for your children" in Acts 2. You also need to put on the community and family mindset of those times instead of modern individual thinking otherwise you'll continue to persist in denying what baptism is truly about...God's work. The Jews would have been horrified if their children weren't included in any of God's promises.

Where are children baptized?

Acts 2 nowhere states that parents should baptize their infant children. You are forcing the concept onto the scriptural passage.
You're appealing to culture?
Okay, let's get rid of the standard communion in nearly all churches and let's have the sadir meal as Jesus and his disciples had it.
The fact is you have no evidence in scripture of any infant ever being baptized. You force Jewish cultural concepts onto the church at one moment and then ignore them at other moments. You desperately want your church dogma to have biblical legitimacy so you will cling to anything that you imagine can even hint of a proof that your denomination isn't wrong.
We have gone long enough. You have provided no compelling scripture at all. Instead the argument is similar to the Roman church when they lift up tradition as being equal or greater than scripture.
If Sola Scriptura is to be held, you will acknowledge that infant baptism is a denominational dogma that is no different than another churches "baby dedication." Neither have biblical support, but it makes for a feel good moment for parents and family members.

 

[Josiah]

Where are children baptized?

Silly question.

Where are blonde haired persons baptized in the Bible? If you can't find a bunch of examples, does your denomination dogmatically forbid them from baptism? Where are Americans baptized in the Bible? If you can't find a bunch of examples, does your denomination dogmatically forbid them?


This is one of two apologetic arguments Anabaptists/Baptists use (they have no Scriptures). The argument is: We are FORBIDDEN to do anything unless it is consistently and clearly illustrated in examples that happen to be recorded in the Bible. Not only is that a denial of Sola Scriptura but it's silly. And an argument they themselves ALWAYS reject in EVERY other situation: After all, they make this argument by posting on the internet - which is never once illustrated in the Bible.... and during Sunday worship where probably 90%+ of what they are doing is never once illustrated in the Bible. They use gentiles to administer Baptism (never once illustrated in the Bible) and a tank behind a curtain in the front of the chapel (never once illustrated in the Bible). They have Communion 4 times a year by passing around in the pews to everyone a bowl of little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice to females as well as males (NONE of which is ever illustrated in the Bible). They REJECT their own apologetic - yet build their entire defining dogma on what they themselves consistently reject.

The fact is you have no evidence in scripture of any infant ever being baptized.

What you have proven is that you have NOTHING (in Scripture or anywhere else) to support all the denials, prohibitions, etc. that is the new invented Dogma of Baptism in the Anabaptist/Baptist denomination. Nothing. Absolutely nothing at all. Just two silly arguments: 1) Those under the age of X can't do what they must be able to do to save themselves and 2) We can't do anything unless it's clearly and consistently illustrated as being done in the Bible (which you state by posting on the internet, go figure).

We have gone long enough. You have provided no scripture at all, compelling or otherwise. Instead your argument is similar to the Roman church when they lift up tradition as being equal or greater than scripture - only the Catholic Church uses ancient and ecumenical Tradition whereas you just lean on 3 German Anabaptist men in the 16th Century who invented this new dogma NOT because of even one Scripture but because they were radical synergists who felt infant baptism implies that it's Jesus that saves rather than a collaborative, synergistic, progressive, cooperative venture. If Sola Scriptura is to be held, you will acknowledge that anti-Paedobaptism/credobaptism is a new denominational dogma with ZERO support from Scripture or anywhere that is simply a creation of the 16th Century by radical synergists.

I have nothing in this but you keep saying he is wrong when he says that there is no verse that talks of infant baptism, if there is please show me as I am not aware of it either.

It's a silly question. Flowing from an absurd apologetic.

Friend, when you can show that all those in the New Testament consistently and clearly communicated by using the internet, then I'll give some credence to the apologetic that we are permitted to do ONLY what is clearly and conssitently illustrated as having been done in the NT. Anabaptists/Baptists consistently REJECT this rubric.... except in one unique, singular, individual case: Baptism. There they make it the whole basis for their new invented dogma on this (they have not one Scripture that remotely supports any aspect of their new invention): the whole thing is build on an argument they themselves reject, repudiate and never (otherwise) employ.



A blessed Easter Season to all....



- Josiah





.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

You're appealing to culture?
Okay, let's get rid of the standard communion in nearly all churches...

Already done by the Anabaptists. Next...

You have provided no compelling scripture at all. Instead the argument is similar to the Roman church when they lift up tradition as being equal or greater than scripture.

I Think what we have is evidence of what one man and his bible can do - present subjective evidence and argue from what is obviously not there, claiming it as "fact" You mentioned "scientific fact", which any good scientist would find laughable. Science is about inferences and further study based on results - not on stating "fact'. Ours would be closer to the scientific method.

If Sola Scriptura is to be held, you will acknowledge that infant baptism is a denominational dogma that is no different than another churches "baby dedication." Neither have biblical support, but it makes for a feel good moment for parents and family members.

Question - how long had Timothy known the scriptures - from childhood or infancy?

 

[MennoSota]

Already done by the Anabaptists. Next...



I Think what we have is evidence of what one man and his bible can do - present subjective evidence and argue from what is obviously not there, claiming it as "fact" You mentioned "scientific fact", which any good scientist would find laughable. Science is about inferences and further study based on results - not on stating "fact'. Ours would be closer to the scientific method.



Question - how long had Timothy known the scriptures - from childhood or infancy?

Red herrings. This just proves there is no biblical support for infant baptism as infants are never mentioned nor inferred in any passage on baptism.
You force your agenda on the scriptures, which shows you consider tradition to be superior to the scriptures. Sola Scriptura is being thrown out as tradition is claimed in its stead.