Can babies be conscious of their baptism?

[Albion]

Actually, it is kind of amusing when people take that 'Trail of Blood' theory seriously. Fortunately, few Baptists actually do.

There is no continuity of Baptistic beliefs going back to the Apostolic age, Jesus, or his disciples. Not even according to the theory. It holds that little bands of heretics here and there through history but disconnected from each other in time, belief, and organization have existed. That's all.

What they have in common is the rejection of infant baptism. Almost nothing else. When it comes to anything else that the typical Baptist would say is part of his belief system, those groups are all over the place.

 

[Josiah]

There is no continuity of Baptistic beliefs going back to the Apostolic age, Jesus, or his disciples. Not even according to the theory. It holds that little bands of heretics here and there through history but disconnected from each other in time, belief, and organization have existed. That's all.

What they have in common is the rejection of infant baptism. Almost nothing else. When it comes to anything else that the typical Baptist would say is part of his belief system, those groups are all over the place.

Correct.


About the only distinctive feature of the Anabaptist/Baptist position is anti-paedobaptism. THAT'S the distinctive, defining teaching. Otherwise, they are pretty much all over the map.

This dogmatic anti-paedobaptism view is entirely unheard of until the 16th Century when a couple of wackidoodle Germans invented it... and then not because of anything on the topic in Scripture but because they were radical synergists (and thus passionately hated the Lutherans) and found paedobaptism incompatible with their very radical synergistic view of justification.


A blessed Easter season to all...


- Josiah

 

[MennoSota]

Actually, it is kind of amusing when people take that 'Trail of Blood' theory seriously. Fortunately, few Baptists actually do.

There is no continuity of Baptistic beliefs going back to the Apostolic age, Jesus, or his disciples. Not even according to the theory. It holds that little bands of heretics here and there through history but disconnected from each other in time, belief, and organization have existed. That's all.

What they have in common is the rejection of infant baptism. Almost nothing else. When it comes to anything else that the typical Baptist would say is part of his belief system, those groups are all over the place.

Sure there is.
John the Baptist and Jesus, with his disciples, baptized people in the River Jordan. The Apostles continued believers baptism starting at Pentacost and it continues throughout the book of Acts. Baptist teachings come directly from this line and continue to today.
The non-biblical baptism of infants came later as a twisted implication from later groups who struggled with infant mortality and what happened to infants. From there we see church dogmas created as a means of scaring people into their denomination and keeping them in the denomination out of fear that God would abandon them.
Since there is not even one mention of infant baptism in any passage in the Bible, it would be great if you would acknowledge this fact and admit that infant baptism is a dogma created by an attempt to "read between the lines" something that is not in the Bible.

 

[Josiah]

The Apostles continued believers baptism starting at Pentacost and it continues throughout the book of Acts.

There's that same silly, absurd apologetic you have been parroting on this subject for months - the same one Anabaptists/Baptists themselves repudiate, reject and deny..... that what Scripture TEACHES is irrelevant, rather the rule is what we see clearly and consistently ILLUSTRATED as done in the few examples that happen to be recorded in the NT. It's one of the most absurd arguments in all of Christianity... and you prove it as you state that by posting on the internet! And of course, it is factually wrong (even if it mattered) that post-paedobaptism was clearly and consistently illustrated: we have those "and their household" cases that you must evade and pretend don't exist. Even if your absurd rubric was valid, it doesn't hold up: NOT every case of baptism that happens to be recorded in the NT was clearly a case of one being over the age of X (or of those who first chose Jesus as their Savior and of those who first wept buckets of tears in repentance or first proved their chosing Jesus or first stated their request to be baptized) - the whole apologetic on which this new invention stands is absurd and not even true.

Baptist teachings come directly from this line and continue to today.

As you've so consistently proven, NOT ONE of the Anabaptist inventions on this point existed before these German wackedoodle uber-synergistis invented them in the 16th Century.... NOT ONE OF THEM. And they invented them NOT because of anything in the Bible but because paedobaptism seemed incompatible with their radical synergism (and because they hated the Lutherans and they didn't forbid those under the age of X).

Since there is not even one mention of infant baptism in any passage in the Bible

... or of baptizing blonde haired people or Americans.... or of any Gentile ever performing a baptism.... or of baptism tanks hidden behind a curtain in the front of a church.... or of those under the age of X being prohibited....

Or of posting on the internet..... or of offering Communion four times a year by passing it around pews to any and all, with a bowl of little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice.... or of youth groups and youth pastors.... or of powerpoint and electricity.... or of pastor's wearing Aloha shirts and jeans.... AND YET.....

It would be great if you would acknowledge this fact and admit that anti-padedobaptism is a dogma created by 3 German wackedodles in the 16th Century NOT because of ANYTHING in the Bible but because of their radical synergism, and that they used an apologetic that is so silly, so absurd that Anabaptist/Baptists to this day never employ it and resoundly denounce it - but parrot it anyway (but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY when concerning Baptism).



A blessed Easter season to all....



- Josiah

 

[Albion]

As we noted earlier, you are contending against a POV that is made possible only if parts of the Bible are ignored.

There's obviously no way of arguing against it since that fact isn't about to be acknowledged by our colleague.

 

[MennoSota]

As we noted earlier, you are contending against a POV that is made possible only if parts of the Bible are ignored.

There's obviously no way of arguing against it since that fact isn't about to be acknowledged by our colleague.

What scripture do I ignore so as to miss the mythical teaching of infant baptism?
I have noted you have played extremely loose with scripture to make it say what it does not say.
The fact shown in scripture is that people were given faith in Christ and then baptism occurred. Never once do we see baptism being given and then later the gift of faith is given by God. Therefore the teachings of Romanists, Lutherans and others surrounding infant baptism is simply the made-up creation of finite men who can't accept God's silence.

 

[atpollard]

The fact shown in scripture is that people were given faith in Christ and then baptism occurred. Never once do we see baptism being given and then later the gift of faith is given by God.

Q.F.T.

Baptism is ALWAYS shown to be a response, never the preceding cause.
(And THAT has nothing to do with the Anabaptists or people with red hair or Americans.)
Acts 2:37 NASB Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”

 

[Lamb]

Q.F.T.

Baptism is ALWAYS shown to be a response, never the preceding cause.
(And THAT has nothing to do with the Anabaptists or people with red hair or Americans.)
Acts 2:37 NASB Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”

The entire household cases show that the head of house believed and then the entire household was baptized...then they believed.

 

[Josiah]

Baptism is ALWAYS shown to be a response.

atpollard, this is simply not true.


Again, we have those "... and their household" Scriptures that Anabaptists/Baptists must evade and ignore. Of course, you cannot prove that every member of those households was over the age of X, had first wept a sufficient number of buckets of tears in repentance, had first chosen Jesus as their personal savior and gave adequate public proof of such, considered baptism to do nothing, and considered baptism a RESPONSE to their having jumped through all those hoops. Reality is: we don't know if ANY of those new prerequisites Anabaptist invented in the 16th applied to all those in those households. Your whole argument is simply wrong.


But again, all reject your entire premise (even you do) - this rubric that we are to ignore what Scripture teaches (Sola Scriptura) and in stead of that, in lieu of that, in place of that, make our rule what we clearly and consistently see ILLUSTRATED as being done in the few examples that happen to be recorded in the Bible. If even you believed this absurd rubric, then you wouldn't be posting on the internet, would you? And you wouldn't permit Gentiles to administer Baptism, you wouldn't allow baptism tanks behind a curtain at the front of a church building, and you wouldn't allow youth groups and youth pastors, and you wouldn't allow Communion to be celebrated just 4 times a year by passing around to all sitting in pews (including women) a bowl of little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice - NONE of which is EVER illustrated as having been done in the NT (much less "clearly and consistently"). The silly apologetic you are using as the foundation for this new dogma is one you yourself reject and never employ - except in the sole case of anti-paedobaptism. Since you reject your whole premise, why should others accept it?

The fact shown in scripture is that people were given faith in Christ and then baptism occurred.

MennoSota, this is just not true.


We have those "... and their household" Scriptures that Anabaptists/Baptists must evade and ignore. Of course, you cannot prove that every member of those households was over the age of X, had first wept a sufficient number of buckets of tears in repentance, had first chosen Jesus as their personal savior and gave adequate public proof of such, considered baptism to do nothing, and considered baptism a RESPONSE to their having jumped through all those hoops. Reality is: we don't know if ANY of those prerequisites Anabaptist mandate were first met. Unless you can prove that every member of every one of those households FIRST jumped through all those hoops, then your whole premise falls and your claims are simply wrong.


But again, all reject your entire premise (even you do) - this rubric that we are to ignore what Scripture teaches (Sola Scriptura) and in stead of that, in lieu of that, in place of that, make our rule what we clearly and consistently see ILLUSTRATED as being done in the few examples that happen to be recorded in the Bible. If even you believed this absurd rubric, then you wouldn't be posting on the internet, would you? And you wouldn't permit Gentiles to administer Baptism, you wouldn't allow baptism tanks behind a curtain at the front of a church building, and you wouldn't allow youth groups and youth pastors, and you wouldn't allow Communion to be celebrated just 4 times a year by passing around to all sitting in pews (including women) a bowl of little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice - NONE of which is EVER illustrated as having been done in the NT (much less "clearly and consistently"). The silly apologetic you are using as the foundation for this new dogma is one you yourself reject and never employ - except in the sole case of anti-paedobaptism. Since you reject your whole premise, why should others accept it?



A blessed Easter season to all....


Josiah





.

 

[MennoSota]

The entire household cases show that the head of house believed and then the entire household was baptized...then they believed.

This is a great example of forcing a dogma from your denomination upon a text in scripture. Not once is any infant mentioned.
If infant baptism were so important one would expect a detailed account. But, there is complete silence regarding infant baptism.
It is interesting how a few denominations have created an entire doctrine around infant baptism with the intent of maintaining membership on earth through such a doctrine. This implies that fear tactics are needed to keep people invested in the denomination rather than expect parents to raise up their children in the knowledge of God. One can conclude that infant baptism is at best a dedication ceremony and at worst a cruel trick designed by church leaders to deceive people. In either case, there is not one shred of biblical evidence for the practice.

 

[atpollard]

At best, there are examples of ‘entire households’ that are silent on the order of belief and baptism, to which one can infer that baptism came first, but which cannot be used to prove from scripture that baptism preceded belief. (This is just a simple fact, like it not mentioning infants or people with red hair one way or the other, so the answer is not explicit).

However, there are several ‘entire households’ where scripture clearly states that the entire household believed and was baptized and one ‘household’ noted for the ability of all members of entire household to minister to the saints. These cases make it clear that at least some ‘entire households’ believed.

I am not arguing that it is impossible for God to save a baby. I am arguing that the scripture for ‘believe and be baptized’ is explicitly stated for many cases (including some ‘entire households), while the scripture for ‘baptize some who do not believe’ must be inferred since it is not stated explicitly.

 

[atpollard]

The entire household cases show that the head of house believed and then the entire household was baptized...then they believed.

Actually, they don’t “SHOW” the “THEN they believed” part. One must assume that based on the assumption that some in the household did not believe (which may be true, but it is still an assumption and not explicitly stated).
Provide a verse that proves me wrong ... I am happy to be convinced from scripture.

 

[Lamb]

Actually, they don’t “SHOW” the “THEN they believed” part. One must assume that based on the assumption that some in the household did not believe (which may be true, but it is still an assumption and not explicitly stated).
Provide a verse that proves me wrong ... I am happy to be convinced from scripture.

Lydia...Acts 16:14-15

The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized,

The Lord opened her heart but scriptures do not speak about her household believing first.


The Jailer...some versions only state that they rejoiced that he believed...other translations have added an inference that the rest believed as well but I'd like to ask my friend George to look at the original Greek if he has time...

Acts 16:31-34 (Young's Literal Translation)

and having taken them, in that hour of the night, he did bathe [them] from the blows, and was baptized, himself and all his presently,

34 having brought them also into his house, he set food before [them], and was glad with all the household, he having believed in God.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]

Actually, they don’t “SHOW” the “THEN they believed” part.

Correct.

They don't "show" (or imply) the "FIRST they believed and AFTER THAT then they were baptized." ALL the Anabaptist/Baptist points on baptism are missing, ALL of them. These "househouse" examples don't show that FIRST all the receivers celebrated their "Xth" birthday, FIRST all of them choose Jesus as their personal Savior and made adequate public proof of that; FIRST they all wept a sufficient number of buckets of tears in repentance; FIRST they affirmed that Baptism does nothing; FIRST they all requested to be baptized. Yup. Every one of the Baptists points of dogma are entirely missing.... yet the very same Anabaptists/Baptists stress that we CANNOT do what is not clearly and consistently illustrated as having been done in the NT.

One must assume that based on the assumption

Correct.

EVERY SINGLE POINT of the new Anabaptist/baptist dogma here is speculation, entirely missing in the Bible. They will post on the internet (sic) that we cannot do stuff unless it is clearly and consistently illustrated as having been done in the Bible.... and yet NOT ONE of their new invented dogmas is clearly and consistently illustrated as having been done - they ultimately admit EVERY POINT is speculation, an assumption they are making.


And. more relevant, they REFUSE to tell us why they use this apologetic when they so clearly and consistently reject and repudiate it (say by posting on the internet!); they shout constantly, perpetually (for almost 500 years now) their whole basis: WE CAN'T DO THINGS UNLESS THEY ARE CONSISTENTLY ILLUSTRATED AS HAVING BEEN DONE IN THE NT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" without ever telling us why, the reason why they don't is obvious: they find their apologetic absurd, silly and they don't accept or use it. They just constantly, perpetually parrot it as their reason to reject paedobaptism. Of course, Anabaptists rejected paedobaptism simply because they were radical synergists and many Baptists still are: thus they have another reason - babies can't do their part in saving themselves. Synergists will keep saying "babies can't, babies can't, babies can't!" But Reformed Baptists have nothing but this silly, absurd rubric they themselves repudiate and which is clearly and obviously WRONG as these "and their household" cases also prove.

I am arguing that the scripture for ‘believe and be baptized’ is explicitly stated for many cases

1. Friend, this is an even weaker, even more absurd apologetic. Friend, the koine Greek word "kai" is the most generic connecting word in the language, it simply associates things. THAT ALL. THAT'S IT. There are words in koine Greek that mean sequence - but they are NEVER, EVER used in this context. There is a koine Greek word that means essentially "then" but it is NEVER ONCE used in this context. The word "tote" is a fairly generic word for "then" but does carry at least a very weak sense of "after." It is NEVER used in the context of Baptism. The koine Greek word "epieta" is stronger but is never used in the context of baptism. "Loiton" is stronger but is never used in the context of Baptism. The consistent word used is "kai" (as is the case in the verse you keep quoting). EVERYONE agrees that the word simply means "and" and NEVER carries the meaning of sequence (one can gather that from the context but the word itself does NOT - ever - mean that). But even then, it would be very weak since if important, words that mean sequence would be used. "Abraham Lincoln was a president and a lawyer" is a correct statement but of course those roles were not in that order. "I got up, went potty, made the coffee and got the newspaper" is 100% acuate but I didn't do them in that order. Friend, your dogmatic insistence that "kai" mandates sequence gets you into SO much trouble biblically (and rationally). It is THE most silly apologetic that can be used in this context.


2. Your rubric here - one you yourself reject and repudiate - simply doesn't work. While it is SOMETIMES true in the few examples of Baptisms that just happen to be recorded in the NT, it is ALWAYS true that Hebrews did the baptizing - so do you dogmatically forbid gentiles from baptizing anyone? It is ALWAYS true that these were not done in a tank located behind a curtain in the front of a church building - so do you dogmatically forbid that practice? And of course, this is a rubric and apologetic Anabaptist/Baptists (Reformed or otherwise) NEVER, EVER use in anything else.... do you refuse to offer Communion to women since there is no clear case of a woman receving Communion in the Bible? Do you dogmatically forbid youth groups and youth pastors? Do you dogmatically forbid communion to be given as little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice? The reality is: you very consistently reject your own apologetic - but constantly parrot it anyway. Why? Because the reason the Anabaptists for inventing this new dogma is because of their very radical synergism (it makes sense there) which Reformed reject, leaving you only with an apologetic you yourselves reject.

If infant baptism were so important one would expect a detailed account. But, there is complete silence regarding infant baptism.

If there was this dogmatic prohibition on infant baptism, one would not expect the complete silence we have in Scripture. Did God not know that infant baptism would be the universal practice from at least 63 AD until 1523 AD?

If some things are prerequisites to baptism, one would not expect the complete silence we have in Scripture. One would not expect the consistent use of "kai" in stead of and in lieu of words that mean "then" or "after that."

If baptism is dogmatically forbidden for those under the age of X, one would not expect the complete silence we have in Scripture (and we'd expect God to tell us what age "X" is). What we have regarding certain groups being dogmatically forbidden (blondes, Americans, short people, etc.) is...... nothing. Funny. If we're dogmatically forbidden to baptize some group of people, one would not expect the complete silence we have in Scripture about that.





A blessed Easter season to all....


- Josiah




.

 

[Lamb]

They don't "show" (or imply) the "FIRST they believed and AFTER THAT then they were baptized."

That's right, Josiah and the verses I gave in post 313 show that to be true. Looking back at the Old Testament we see the same thing as we find in the New Testament except that it concerns circumcision. When the head of household believed...his entire household of men was circumcised. No one waited for a baby to give permission. In the New Testament that family unit held the same and looking at that consistency shows that they weren't considering the individual but the household as being under the head. Now, we aren't saying that all will have salvation because of the head of household but it was the head of household who saw to it that the household was taught about God and His Law and Gospel. In the New Testament Baptism and teaching goes hand in hand so the head of household has his entire unit baptized and then continued on with having them learn.

 

[MennoSota]

The conclusion one must take from Josiah and Lämmchen is that baptism has no function beyond physical identification with a communal group or covenant. It does not function to identify the one being baptized as an adopted member of the body of Christ. Instead it functions merely to acknowledge that a leader of a household is adopted and the others wish to be a part of that persons commune.
Baptism therefore had nothing to do with salvation, grace or redemption. Anyone who merely wants to identify with a covenantal group can be baptized regardless of their corrupt and fallen condition.
This position is of course not presented in scripture, but since the denomination pushes it they will blindly push the same view.
SMH

 

[Lamb]

The conclusion one must take from Josiah and Lämmchen is that baptism has no function beyond physical identification with a communal group or covenant. It does not function to identify the one being baptized as an adopted member of the body of Christ. Instead it functions merely to acknowledge that a leader of a household is adopted and the others wish to be a part of that persons commune.
Baptism therefore had nothing to do with salvation, grace or redemption. Anyone who merely wants to identify with a covenantal group can be baptized regardless of their corrupt and fallen condition.
This position is of course not presented in scripture, but since the denomination pushes it they will blindly push the same view.
SMH

You obviously have no idea what Lutherans believe in regards to baptism, nor have you been paying attention to the numerous posts by Lutheran on it as well as having denial of the scriptural proof we've provided.

 

[MennoSota]

You obviously have no idea what Lutherans believe in regards to baptism, nor have you been paying attention to the numerous posts by Lutheran on it as well as having denial of the scriptural proof we've provided.

I know what I read. I know that Lutherans have created prooftexts from silence to establish a dogma that provides no spiritual benefit for anyone. It is rather sad to see such desperation to appease a denomination and tradition over God's word. It is sad to see such abysmal interpretive hermaneutics being used to conjure a false doctrine out of thin air. It is apparent that the Bible is viewed as secondary to church tradition by Lutherans on the CH. If it were not so I would see Lutherans rejecting the non biblical teaching of infant baptism. But, Lutherans seem tied to their denomination above scripture. That is very sad.

 

[Lamb]

I know what I read. I know that Lutherans have created prooftexts from silence to establish a dogma that provides no spiritual benefit for anyone. It is rather sad to see such desperation to appease a denomination and tradition over God's word. It is sad to see such abysmal interpretive hermaneutics being used to conjure a false doctrine out of thin air. It is apparent that the Bible is viewed as secondary to church tradition by Lutherans on the CH. If it were not so I would see Lutherans rejecting the non biblical teaching of infant baptism. But, Lutherans seem tied to their denomination above scripture. That is very sad.

This type of rhetoric seems to be your go-to response without scriptural proof that proves what Lutherans believe as being wrong. I mean, you can't even state what Lutherans believe accurately.

 

[MennoSota]

This type of rhetoric seems to be your go-to response without scriptural proof that proves what Lutherans believe as being wrong. I mean, you can't even state what Lutherans believe accurately.

Lutherans can't even state what they believe accurately.
Some claim Sola Scriptura, but then they fall on tradition while not providing any legitimate scripture. This dialogue is a case in point.
It is clear that you will cling to your church dogma despite having no biblical support. Your claims are entirely what your denomination tells you to think. You are welcome to doing so, but your claim of biblical proof is laughable as you have played with scripture interpretation much like a Muslim, Mormon or Jehovah's Witness plays with scripture interpretation. You turn it into an unveiled prooftext supported only by a phrase while ignoring the whole context.
Believe your false dogma if you must.