Can babies be conscious of their baptism?

[Josiah]

.

 

[Josiah]

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.

Wrong. There is no "then" in the verse. The translation you selected simply ADDED that word. It's not in the Greek.




BOTH Anabaptist/Baptist apologetics for this new dogma they invented in 1523 are wrong.


1. That the Bible states a long list of mandated prerequisites that must be met in a certain chronological sequence. ENORMOUS emphasis is given to the consist use of the words "and then after that...." As I said, there is not one verse in the Bible about things associated with baptism where the word "then" appears. When various things are noted along with baptism, the consistent word is "kai." It is THE most generic, general connective word in koine Greek. The apologetic that the Anabaptists invented is that "kai" mandates chronological sequence, but it's simply wrong (yet Anabaptists - even those who know Greek and thus know better - state that as their apologetic for their new baptism dogma). There ARE words the Holy Spirit could have used if there was ANY desire to even remotely IMPLY sequence, such as tote or epeita or loiton but those words are never found in this context, just the word "kai'. So evidently the Holy Spirit knows nothing of this Anabaptist/Baptist point about dogmatically mandated sequence, dogmatic prerequisites, mandated chronological order.... the Holy Spirit only knows that repentance and baptism are associated in the loosest, most generic way possible, a way that does NOT even remotely impliy sequence - much less dogmatically mandated it. This is simply WRONG.


2. That we can't do anything unless it is clearly and consistently illustrated as having been done in the Bible. This is also clearly wrong and is one Anabaptists/Baptists themselves reject and repudiate but they use it as their other apologetic for this new defining dogma of that denomination. This is simply WRONG.

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.”

There is no "then" in the verse. You simply deleted the word the Holy Spirit chose (kai) and replaced it when one the Holy Spirit did not use (loiton). And this does NOT say, "FIRST all must weep X number of buckets of tears in repentance and when that work has been completed and is finished, THEN AFTER THAT be baptized and THEN AFTER THAT recieve the forgiveness of sins and THEN AFTER THAT receive the Holy Spirit."





- Josiah




.

 

[atpollard]

Acts 2:41 οἱ μὲν οὖν ἀποδεξάμενοι τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθησαν καὶ προσετέθησαν ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ψυχαὶ ὡσεὶ τρισχίλιαι

STRONGS NT 3767: οὖν
οὖν a conjunction indicating that something follows from another necessarily;

 

[atpollard]

Wrong. There is no "then" in the verse. You looked carefully for some English translation that simply ADDED that word. It's not in the Greek. Or in most English translations.

I resent the false accusation. Even a quick look will reveal that NASB is the version I quote almost exclusively, so all I did was a quick word search in my favorite translation for “then” and “baptized”. The word “then” appears in no passage in any Greek manuscript ... it is not a Greek word. There is a Greek word that is not unreasonably translated ‘Then’ which appears in the verse.

I am tired of suffering imputations on my intents. You made an over-general statement which I challenged because it was over-general. I wash my hands of your diatribes against Anabaptist Synergysm that has nothing to do with Particular Baptists or me.

You can have the last word, because I have no more stomach to read it.

 

[Josiah]

I resent the false accusation. Even a quick look will reveal that NASB is the version I quote almost exclusively, so all I did was a quick word search in my favorite translation for “then” and “baptized”. The word “then” appears in no passage in any Greek manuscript ... it is not a Greek word. There is a Greek word that is not unreasonably translated ‘Then’ which appears in the verse.
.

I stated that the word "then" does not appear in any text where baptism is associated with other things.

You stated I was wrong, finding ONE verse where ONE English translation inserted the word "then" into the translation, although NO Greek word for "then" appears in the Greek (as you chose to prove).

Friend, there ARE words for "then" in koine Greek. THREE of them, in fact. NEVER are ANY of them used in ANY verse where an association is stated between baptism and something else. You may, of course, insist that the Holy Spirit MEANT to use one of those words in every case - but never did, but that doesn't change my point or confirm your apologetic that repentance is a prerequisite for baptism, mandated to come in chronological sequence BEFORE baptism because you found a verse that says "Repent and be Baptized" but the word is not "THEN" as both you and MennoSota insist, the word is "kai" (AND), a word that IN NO WAY carries an implication of order or sequence, much less dogmatically MANDATES such. The Anabaptist apologetic you state here is wrong.


And of course, the verse where you found one translation that ADDED the word "then" is simply stating ONE case of something that HAPPENED; it does not say, "one must hear the Word and AFTER THAT, in chronological sequence following, THEN one may be baptized." So it does nothing to support the Anabaptist/Baptist dogma. If I wrote, "I went to work and had coffee" would not mandate a new dogma that one can only drink coffee after they've gone to work; that we are dogmatically forbidden to drink coffee before going to word. So, not only are NONE of the words meaning "then" are in the text, but it would supply NOTHING to support the new Anabaptist dogma even if your verse did contain one of the Greek words for "then". Which it doesn't.



- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

Wrong. There is no "then" in the verse. The translation you selected simply ADDED that word. It's not in the Greek.




BOTH Anabaptist/Baptist apologetics for this new dogma they invented in 1523 are wrong.


1. That the Bible states a long list of mandated prerequisites that must be met in a certain chronological sequence. ENORMOUS emphasis is given to the consist use of the words "and then after that...." As I said, there is not one verse in the Bible about things associated with baptism where the word "then" appears. When various things are noted along with baptism, the consistent word is "kai." It is THE most generic, general connective word in koine Greek. The apologetic that the Anabaptists invented is that "kai" mandates chronological sequence, but it's simply wrong (yet Anabaptists - even those who know Greek and thus know better - state that as their apologetic for their new baptism dogma). There ARE words the Holy Spirit could have used if there was ANY desire to even remotely IMPLY sequence, such as tote or epeita or loiton but those words are never found in this context, just the word "kai'. So evidently the Holy Spirit knows nothing of this Anabaptist/Baptist point about dogmatically mandated sequence, dogmatic prerequisites, mandated chronological order.... the Holy Spirit only knows that repentance and baptism are associated in the loosest, most generic way possible, a way that does NOT even remotely impliy sequence - much less dogmatically mandated it. This is simply WRONG.


2. That we can't do anything unless it is clearly and consistently illustrated as having been done in the Bible. This is also clearly wrong and is one Anabaptists/Baptists themselves reject and repudiate but they use it as their other apologetic for this new defining dogma of that denomination. This is simply WRONG.







There is no "then" in the verse. You simply deleted the word the Holy Spirit chose (kai) and replaced it when one the Holy Spirit did not use (loiton). And this does NOT say, "FIRST all must weep X number of buckets of tears in repentance and when that work has been completed and is finished, THEN AFTER THAT be baptized and THEN AFTER THAT recieve the forgiveness of sins and THEN AFTER THAT receive the Holy Spirit."





- Josiah




.

You ignore that the entire context of Acts 2 is the coming of the Holy Spirit. It is horrific hermaneutics to extrapolate infant baptism from one part of a sentence as Lämmchen has done.

 

[Josiah]

You ignore that the entire context of Acts 2 is the coming of the Holy Spirit. It is horrific hermaneutics to extrapolate infant baptism from one part of a sentence as Lämmchen has done.

Acts 2 says NOTHING about it being forbidden to baptize any who has not yet celebrated their Xth birthday, has not yet wept X buckets of tears in repentance, has not yet chosen Jesus has their personal Savior and given adequate public proof of such, has not yet declared that Baptism does nothing and is a waste to time and water, has not yet publicly declared their own desire to be baptized. In other words, NOTHING to suppport the new Baptism dogma of the Anabaptists/Baptists. Nothing.

 

[MennoSota]

Acts 2 says NOTHING about it being forbidden to baptize any who has not yet celebrated their Xth birthday, has not yet wept X buckets of tears in repentance, has not yet chosen Jesus has their personal Savior and given adequate public proof of such, has not yet declared that Baptism does nothing and is a waste to time and water, has not yet publicly declared their own desire to be baptized. In other words, NOTHING to suppport the new Baptism dogma of the Anabaptists/Baptists. Nothing.

Josiah, no one says Acts 2 tells us about the age a person must be to be baptized. What I am saying is that Acts 2:39 is NOT talking about children being baptized. It is talking about the promised Holy Spirit being for everyone who believes. I am saying that Acts 2:38 reveals that repentance came before baptism in that specific instance.
Now...your argument is mythical and the debate you are having is only in your own mind and nowhere else on the CH. You can keep sharing your myth as it seems to be the crutch you require to not accept what scripture says.
Also, don't tell us you hold to Sola Scriptura because that is certainly not true.

 

[Arsenios]

Exactly. And that is why all the Bible quotes that people opposed to baptizing infants present to us as their proof are irrelevant. Those are Bible passages that deal with missionaries or disciples dealing with adults. Those people, being adults, of course have to know what their commitment is and make a confession of faith before being baptized. But it doesn't apply to infants and toddlers. For them, sponsors or witnesses make the promises to disavow the Devil, affirm a belief in the Lord, and promise to bring the child up in the faith. As has been noted here before, even at that, the child thus baptized does have to make a commitment to Christ at some later time in life.

If Baptism is understood as Christ entering a person into His Body, as the Ancient Faith understands it, then the intellectual understanding of the child is not an issue at all, though that of the parents/adults is... And Christ did say: "Permit the little ones to come unto Me..." The parents and families are then entrusted with the Christian upbringing of the Child...

Many churches these days do not permit children to be full members of their churches, but instead shuffle them off to kindergarden-sunday-school and they end up in classes while the adults themselves are in the sermon-classes in Church... Both receiving longish sermon-lectures... The consequence then can easily turn out, as it indeed has, that kids growing into adults see graduation from high-school/college as graduation from Church... Attendance then lapses, as it has...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

There is no real harm in infant baptism

Add a little soap and a brush, plus a rinse, and at least they will have had one bath in their lives!

As long as the baby does not have to take part of drinking wine for communion

We Baptize and give Holy Communion to the newborn at the re-Churching of the Mother 40 days after birth...

That infant is at that point a full member of the Body of Christ...

He or She grows up with his or her earliest experiences as members of a worshipping Body in the House of Prayer...

but Is adult baptism discouraged or no?

All Baptism at any age is greatly encouraged...
But adults need to know what the Faith of Christ actually is...
Hence the catechetical teachings for adults seeking entry into Christ...
Infants need adults who know for them...

Arsenios

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

We Baptize and give Holy Communion to the newborn at the re-Churching of the Mother 40 days after birth...

Arsenios

re-Churching?

 

[Arsenios]

Acts 2:41 οἱ μὲν οὖν ἀποδεξάμενοι τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθησαν...

STRONGS NT 3767: οὖν
οὖν a conjunction indicating that something follows from another necessarily;[/QUOTE]

It at least means "accordingly", which does not imply necessity or necessarily - It simply means "in accordance with..."

So that the actions are not forced, but flow naturally one into the next...

This can imply sequence...

But not forced necessity...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

re-Churching?

Yes - The new mother recovering from birth is given 40 days to recover from the pangs of birth with the new child outside the Church Services... She then is re-Churched and the child is baptized and given communion...

We do somewhat the same for war veterans - They are taken out of Communion for a time until they recover from killing others in battle... Then they are received back into Communion - And this time in accordance with the assessment of their Confessional Priest...

Both are ancient and traditional practices...

Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

Add a little soap and a brush, plus a rinse, and at least they will have had one bath in their lives!



We Baptize and give Holy Communion to the newborn at the re-Churching of the Mother 40 days after birth...

That infant is at that point a full member of the Body of Christ...

He or She grows up with his or her earliest experiences as members of a worshipping Body in the House of Prayer...



All Baptism at any age is greatly encouraged...
But adults need to know what the Faith of Christ actually is...
Hence the catechetical teachings for adults seeking entry into Christ...
Infants need adults who know for them...

Arsenios

Wait,what?! Adults need the approval of your church to be reconciled with God?
I'm reading your post and trying to connect even one part of your churches process to Holy Scripture and I can't make a connection. It seems your church is just making up stuff and saying "It is so."

 

[Josiah]

STRONGS NT 3767: οὖν
οὖν a conjunction indicating that something follows from another necessarily;

It at least means "accordingly", which does not imply necessity or necessarily - It simply means "in accordance with..."

So that the actions are not forced, but flow naturally one into the next...

This can imply sequence...

But not forced necessity...

Arsenios

Good to have an active Eastern Orthodox voice here.....

You've entered in the midst of a lengthy, on-going discussion between two Reformed Baptists and several with more traditional views on the topic of baptism. The Baptists have, as one of their 3 apologetics, that the word "kai" mandates chronological sequence, a point I've been disagreeing with. For example, the verse usually quoted is, "... repent and be baptized..." MY position is that these things are ASSOCIATED (linked if you will) but there is not a dogmatic mandate of chronological sequence so that the verse dogmatically mandates that FIRST the receiver himself/herself must repent and THEN (after that in sequence) the prohibition on baptism is lifted (I realize there's an issue of some of vicarious actions by sponsors but that's a different issue). I don't deny CONTEXT may suggest or imply order but the word itself doesn't carry that meaning. I've been told there are 3 koine Greek words that typically DO carry that connotation (usually translated as "then") but none of those appear in any text in connection to baptism. I made that point, to which Arthur gave that verse as proof that I was wrong.


In the West, for the past 500 years, the issue of Anti-Paedobaptism (and with it Credobaptism) are "hot button" issues for a tiny minority of Protestants. And since that IS the defining dogma for them, it's held passionately. It's a particularly hard topic to discuss.... and often lacking in any degree of intellectual honesty or a "level playing field." It's one of the very few topics that simply cannot be discussed here at CH (or pretty much anywhere).


Good to have you here....


- Josiah




.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

nm

 

[MennoSota]

I am fascinated by many people who place their faith in church tradition even when the tradition has no basis in scripture.

 

[Lamb]

I am fascinated by many people who place their faith in church tradition even when the tradition has no basis in scripture.

Polycarp, the disciple of John was baptized as an infant. Tradition.

 

[Josiah]

Polycarp, the disciple of John was baptized as an infant. Tradition.

IMO, Scripture does not specifically state that some groups are PROHIBITED to be baptized.... and this includes those under the age of X and those with blue eyes (even though there MAY be no examples of either actually being baptized in the few examples of baptism that happen to be recorded in the NT). On the other hand, there is no explicit command to INCLUDE those under the age of X and/or those with blue eyes.


IMO, everyone points to Tradition. It's just that most point to ancient, universal, never-questioned, ecumenical Tradition that goes back to the Apostolic Age (the first KNOWN case of infant baptism is from the year 63 - well within the time of the Apostles and when the NT was being written),we know it was universal by the Second Century - and we KNOW this continued, without question until 1523 when 3 German wackedoodle radical synergists first questioned this practice. But it's still the practice of the VAST majority of Christians today. But others point to the new invented Tradition of these German Anabaptists, created out of thin air in 1523, NOT because of any Scripture (they had none) but because infant baptism seemed to not "jibe" with their radical synergism. Anabaptists today will parrot this Tradition (we've seen 2 very stunning examples of this recently at CH). So..... who might have better known Jesus' intent in the Great Commission? The Apostles and those who lived in the First Century or 3 German radical synergists in 1523?



- Josiah

 

[MennoSota]

Tradition without scriptural connection is just a man-made ceremony to make humans feel better.
If the tradition does not preach another gospel, feel free to have your man-made ceremony. If the tradition gives a false gospel that convinces people they are adopted children of God when in reality they are still children of perdition, then the traditional ceremony should come to a sudden and drastic halt...regardless of the number of years the tradition has gone on. Tradition for traditions sake is a fools party.
Anyone preaching the false gospel that infant baptism brings the infant into God's family should stop immediately and repent of the false gospel message they are preaching. End the tradition. It has become anathema.
Anyone preaching infant baptism as a communal dedication to train up the infant to know God’s message of reconciliation and adoption should continue to hold that vow of training. The ceremony did not go against the gospel of grace.