Can babies be conscious of their baptism?

[atpollard]

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.

YES! This is the heart of the Covenent Baptism position ... that baptism has replaced circumcision. However, this is not the argument that is being presented in these topics for why babies should be baptized. Instead I am being pummeled with ‘it doesn’t say not to’ and ‘households must include babies, so babies were baptized in scripture’.

We simply have no way to know if everyone in Lydia’s household believed or if some were baptized without belief. The scripture is silent on that issue. The Jailer’s entire household appears to have believed and been baptized, though. The household of Crispus (Acts 18:8) all believed and were baptized.

The question at the core is does Jesus save individuals and graft them into God’s Family, or does Jesus save entire households? That is where Lutherans and Reformed Baptists disagree. I don’t think from scripture that it is 100% ‘either/or’ but Baptists and Lutherans place the emphasis on slightly different syllables ... tomato ... tomatoe.

 

[atpollard]

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.

Don’t you ever get tired of refuting arguments that I am not making? :ewink:

Acts 18:8 NASB Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.

 

[Josiah]

atpollard, See post 314

We simply have no way to know if everyone in Lydia’s household believed or if some were baptized without belief. The scripture is silent on that issue.

Correct. Thus the Reformed Baptist position is based on a WRONG apologetic.

The premise is that we are to ignore what Scripture teaches and in stead of that, in lieu of that, we are to regard as normative what we clearly and consistently see DONE in the few examples that happen to be recorded in the Bible (an absurd rubric that even Anabaptists/Baptists reject but use as their premise here). And then the point (SO often made in these threads here at CH) that "EVERY case of baptism that just happens to be recorded in the NT is of one who has FIRST attained the age of X, FIRST wept sufficient number of buckets of tears in repentance, FIRST chose Jesus as their personal savior and given adequate public proof of such, FIRST regarded baptism as worthless and doing nothing, FIRST requested baptism. But as you yourself admit, this is simply not true: Scripture is silent on every one of those points. The apologetic is silly.... and the claim is false.

The question at the core is does Jesus save individuals and graft them into God’s Family, or does Jesus save entire households? That is where Lutherans and Reformed Baptists disagree. I don’t think from scripture that it is 100% ‘either/or’ but Baptists and Lutherans place the emphasis on slightly different syllables ... tomato ... tomatoe.

No.


Lutherans hold as WRONG the dogma that these radical synergist German wackidoodles invented out-the-blue in the 16th Century that Scripture dogmatically FORBIDS baptism until the recievers FIRST attain the (never disclosed) age of X, FIRST wept a sufficient number of buckets of tears in repentance, FIRST choose Jesus as their personal savior and give adequate public proof of that, FIRST regard Baptism as worthless, and FIRST request baptism. We reject that dogma. The defining dogma of Anabaptist/Baptist.

And like Anabaptists/Baptists themselves, we reject their whole premise that we can only do what we see clearly and consistently DONE in the few examples that just happen to be recorded in the NT (which is why Lutherans think it's okay to post on the internet).


See post 314




- Josiah



.

 

[Lamb]

The question at the core is does Jesus save individuals and graft them into God’s Family, or does Jesus save entire households? That is where Lutherans and Reformed Baptists disagree. I don’t think from scripture that it is 100% ‘either/or’ but Baptists and Lutherans place the emphasis on slightly different syllables ... tomato ... tomatoe.

Jesus died for the sins of the world. We are all saved in the same way, by grace through faith without works.

Baptism gives faith because God's Word is with the water. Jesus gave the authority to baptize so we know it's what God wants and in Acts we see it's for our children too so that the family unit can remain under God...as for me and my house we will worship the Lord.

 

[MennoSota]

Jesus died for the sins of the world. We are all saved in the same way, by grace through faith without works.

Universalism?

Baptism gives faith because God's Word is with the water.

God's Word is in all His creation. It's with the trees, the birds, the orbital ellipse, etc. None of those prove that baptism gives faith. What text in scripture shares the idea that "baptism gives faith?" There is no text that I know of. I suspect you have picked up a pet phrase of your denomination rather than a passage of scripture that teaches such a statement.

Jesus gave the authority to baptize so we know it's what God wants

Go into the world and make disciples. That is the first thing God wants. After that he says "baptizing them." Who is "them?" It is the disciples you have made.

and in Acts we see it's for our children too so that the family unit can remain under God...

We don't see children. You are inferring children into the text. Be honest.

as for me and my house we will worship the Lord.

That's an Old Testament, Mosaic Covenant passage you are forcing into the Church. Once again, that is your denominational bias forcing two different issues into one mashup.

 

[Lamb]

Acts 2:39 ...This promise is for you and your children

 

[Josiah]

We don't see children. You are inferring children into the text. Be honest.

You don't see blondes being baptized either. So does your denomination dogmatically forbid blonde haired persons from being baptized or does it reject your whole premise?

Oh, and by the way, the word "then" does not appear in ANY text REMOTELY related to baptism. You just put it there. Be honest.

 

[atpollard]

You don't see blondes being baptized either. So does your denomination dogmatically forbid blonde haired persons from being baptized or does it reject your whole premise?

1. Lydia might have been a blonde (it doesn’t say).

Oh, and by the way, the word "then" does not appear in ANY text REMOTELY related to baptism. You just put it there. Be honest.

[Act 2:41 NASB] 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

 

[Lamb]

[Act 2:41 NASB] 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

Babies receive His Word too before their baptisms. It's part of the liturgy.

 

[Albion]

1 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

There is nothing in this verse that says that small children were among those being baptized--or that they were not.

 

[MennoSota]

Acts 2:39 ...This promise is for you and your children

You conveniently ignore Acts 2:38...
Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God...be baptized.
THEN...you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Focus on that last statement)
This promise... (what promise? The gift of the Holy Spirit) is to you and your children and those who are far away and have been called.
Acts of the Apostles 2:38-39
[38]Peter replied, “Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
[39]This promise is to you, to your children, and to those far away—all who have been called by the Lord our God.”
Lämmchen the promise is not baptism. The promise is the Holy Spirit.
Can you see how you have misused Acts 2:39 to create a prooftext that is out of context? What you have done is really bad hermaneutics.

 

[MennoSota]

Babies receive His Word too before their baptisms. It's part of the liturgy.

Is that liturgy in scripture or Lutheran dogma?

 

[atpollard]

Babies receive His Word too before their baptisms. It's part of the liturgy.

Perhaps, but I wasn’t commenting on that. Josiah stated emphatically that there were NO VERSES that linked the word “then” with baptism. I simply provided a verse that contained the word “then” and “baptized”. I was correcting a false sweeping statement. There is at least one verse.

 

[Lamb]

Perhaps, but I wasn’t commenting on that. Josiah stated emphatically that there were NO VERSES that linked the word “then” with baptism. I simply provided a verse that contained the word “then” and “baptized”. I was correcting a false sweeping statement. There is at least one verse.

Yes, it's true that God's Word is active and alive and brings people to faith and then they want to be baptized and scripture does have more than one example of that. If someone rejects the Savior there is no need to baptize that person because he would also reject any further teaching and teaching and baptism go hand in hand.

What is key in this argument is that it's God's Word that is alive and active in the Gospel being proclaimed but also in the waters of baptism (Ephesians 5:26).

Entire households were baptized after the head came to faith because the head took on the responsibility of continuing to have the household taught. Just like there are some men who come to faith and then later turn away there will be babies who are baptized and later turn away as well and reject the Savior.

 

[Lamb]

Is that liturgy in scripture or Lutheran dogma?

Don't you know that the liturgy is built on verses from the bible?

 

[Lamb]

You conveniently ignore Acts 2:38...
Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God...be baptized.
THEN...you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Focus on that last statement)
This promise... (what promise? The gift of the Holy Spirit) is to you and your children and those who are far away and have been called.
Acts of the Apostles 2:38-39
[38]Peter replied, “Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
[39]This promise is to you, to your children, and to those far away—all who have been called by the Lord our God.”
Lämmchen the promise is not baptism. The promise is the Holy Spirit.
Can you see how you have misused Acts 2:39 to create a prooftext that is out of context? What you have done is really bad hermaneutics.

This promise is for you and your children...it is YOU who is mistaken on how you are reading the verse because you were erroneously taught that it wasn't about baptism.

 

[MennoSota]

Don't you know that the liturgy is built on verses from the bible?

Is it like the verse you used that is out of context? Muslims use liturgy as well. Plucking verses out of context as a prooftext does not make for good teaching.

 

[MennoSota]

This promise is for you and your children...it is YOU who is mistaken on how you are reading the verse because you were erroneously taught that it wasn't about baptism.

The text itself shows that the promise is the Holy Spirit. It also shows that repentance happens before baptism.
Stop putting your church dogma above the Bible.

 

[Lamb]

Menno, clearly YOUR church doesn't see the connection of God's Word, baptism and the Holy Spirit. Now that we've both said pretty much the same thing to each other...

<_<

Do you have anything fresh to add with scriptural support besides saying the same thing about how anyone who disagrees with you is wrong because their denomination teaches that?

 

[MennoSota]

Menno, clearly YOUR church doesn't see the connection of God's Word, baptism and the Holy Spirit. Now that we've both said pretty much the same thing to each other...

<_<

Do you have anything fresh to add with scriptural support besides saying the same thing about how anyone who disagrees with you is wrong because their denomination teaches that?

I have addressed the text of scripture, not my churches liturgy (of which there is none). The context of Acts 2 is the work of the Holy Spirit at Pentacost. The sentence you pulled from verse 39 is not connecting baptism to infants. It is connecting the Holy Spirit to generations after Pentacost. This is very clearly shown in the text.
I suggest you question your churches liturgy to see if it actually adheres to sound hermenuetics. This would be the "Berean" thing to do. I submit that your churches liturgy regarding infant baptism is significantly in error and should be rescinded.