Can babies be conscious of their baptism?

[Lamb]

Jesus saves. God has chosen to use water (by His Word) to bring the benefits of the cross to us.

Just like God chose to save Noah and his family with the ark from the floods. God uses means. Do we say that the ark saved Noah or was it God? The ark was the vessel God used to save Noah just like baptism is the means that God uses to bring the benefits of the cross to us.

There is no difference between the benefits a baby receives compared to what an adult receives in baptism...that is why I did not separate anything like you demanded multiple times. That's just your confusion playing out.

 

[Albion]

In this never-ending debate over whether Baptism saves (or not), it looks like the only issue is whether reception of the sacrament of Baptism GUARANTEES salvation--no exceptions...you are going to be saved regardless of anything else.

That is what those members who insist that Baptism does NOT save are attributing to us.

 

[Lamb]

In this never-ending debate over whether Baptism saves (or not), it looks like the only issue is whether reception of the sacrament of Baptism GUARANTEES salvation--no exceptions...you are going to be saved regardless of anything else.

That is what those members who insist that Baptism does NOT save are attributing to us.

To those I say that we also have no guarantee that an adult who hears the Word of God and believes will remain in faith because scripture tells us that we can fall from faith. Baptism gives faith so will that infant remain in faith is not something we can know so why withhold it? I mean, you aren't going to withhold reading scripture to your children, are you????

 

[Josiah]

In this never-ending debate over whether Baptism saves (or not), it looks like the only issue is whether reception of the sacrament of Baptism GUARANTEES salvation--no exceptions...you are going to be saved regardless of anything else.

That is what those members who insist that Baptism does NOT save are attributing to us.

I don't know of anyone who has argued that Baptism saves (although there IS that verse all Anabaptists must turn upside down)..... JESUS is the Savior (not anything or anyone else). Justification is Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide as ONE inseparable, united doctrine - ALL the GIFT of God, the good work of God.

It's just that SOME Baptists who are nonetheless monergists will insist that God CANNOT use any means or tools in order to give this gift to an individual, God simply cannot do that (lacking that ability), this gift MUST be given apart of anything or anyone or any activity (thus to be consistent, they'd be opposed to preaching, teaching, evangelism, mission work, etc. but ODDLY they usually aren't). Herein lies a major disagreement: Sacramental Protestants believe that God not only CAN but often DOES use means. We call them "the Means of Grace" - tools in the hands of the Carpenter, impotent in an of themselves but in the hands of God, a tool of God. Does God HAVE to use these? Absolutely not (we're not the side telling God what He is disallowed to do). Now, we could argue whether God is able to use BAPTISM or not (and that verse Anabaptists must denounce) but the argument is larger - whether God CAN use anything or anyone at anytime in the issue of bringing blessings to a person.

A Means of Grace doesn't save - only God does. And it doesn't GUARENTEE that faith - life - justification results (although again, there are a goodly number of verses that strongly suggest it CAN). But here's where I find the Anabaptist view very odd: They will insist that preaching/teaching/Word does NOT guarentee that faith/life/justification results - and yet they don't forbid the application of the Word to non-believers. Some of them even STRESS the need and appropriateness of applying a Means of Grace that they admit does NOT guarentee the Gift of faith-life-justification. And yet, with Baptism, they insist we are FORBIDDEN, dogmatically prohibited, from baptizing BECAUSE it is not guarenteed that 100% of the time, the person will (at least sometime) gain the divine gift of life - faith - justification. It's just one of many contradictions and absurdities in Anabaptist apologetics on this point.



- Josiah

 

[MennoSota]

.

 

[Lamb]

And yet, without teaching to continue in faith, what good would it do? Just like teaching a grown man about Jesus and then never speaking the Word to him again...you can't let faith die.

 

[atpollard]

It's just that SOME Baptists who are nonetheless monergists will insist that God CANNOT use any means or tools in order to give this gift to an individual ...

It is not GOD that we have a problem with. We question the ability of the priest and the parents to give any gift to any individual on God’s behalf.
We are called to preach. We are called to teach. Sinners are called to repent. Sinners are called to be baptized. God handles all the rest of our justification and most of our sanctification without any help from us. Jesus didn't need human help on the cross, or in the tomb. The Holy Spirit didn’t need human help at Pentecost. Why are Jesus and the Holy Spirit suddenly so incapable of working without a priest and parents and some sprinkled water?

You are welcome to disagree with my position, but is it really so hard to comprehend that you need to constantly misrepresent it as you slay these straw men?

 

[Lamb]

It is not GOD that we have a problem with. We question the ability of the priest and the parents to give any gift to any individual on God’s behalf.

The problem is that you reject that Jesus gives the authority to the Church (not just to priests/pastors but to the church itself) to baptize in His name. And Jesus Himself used earthly means (mud) when He healed a blind man. So why would He not be consistent about earthly means (water)?

 

[atpollard]

The problem is that you reject that Jesus gives the authority to the Church (not just to priests/pastors but to the church itself) to baptize in His name. And Jesus Himself used earthly means (mud) when He healed a blind man. So why would He not be consistent about earthly means (water)?

It is not GOD (or his means) that we have a problem with. We question the ability of the priest and the parents to give any gift to any individual on God’s behalf.
We are called to preach.
We are called to teach.
Sinners are called to repent.
Sinners are called to be baptized.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Can babies be conscious of their baptism?

Obviously you're not going to be asking any living babies this question. And equally obviously you do not have access to any babies who are in heaven so you will not be asking any of them this question while you are in this world. So isn't this question kind of unanswerable? Isn't it sort of pointless?

 

[Andrew]

Can babies be conscious of their baptism?

Obviously you're not going to be asking any living babies this question. And equally obviously you do not have access to any babies who are in heaven so you will not be asking any of them this question while you are in this world. So isn't this question kind of unanswerable? Isn't it sort of pointless?

This question was brought up because I favored adult baptism over infant baptism. I argued that the baptism should be done on a willing consciously-aware-of-repentance-and-sin adult and not forced on a baby due to fearful parents. I have since changed my mind (kind of) but I encourage adult baptism even after an infant baptism if they feel it appropriate to wash away former sin and experience the re-birth 'aware'.
I just don't understand how a baby can repent of sins and be reborn a week after being born... :/
The only rebuttal I have gotten that holds weight is that John leaped in the spirit while in the womb.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

I just don't understand how a baby can repent of sins and be reborn a week after being born... :/

That is beside the point. An adult has to repent in order to qualify, but an infant cannot...just as you said. Therefore, we do not expect him to make any confession in order to receive the blessings of God. Remember that Baptism is something from God; it is not something we do in order to appease God.

 

[Arsenios]

That is beside the point. An adult has to repent in order to qualify, but an infant cannot...just as you said. Therefore, we do not expect him to make any confession in order to receive the blessings of God. Remember that Baptism is something from God; it is not something we do in order to appease God.

The child is baptized and the parent rears it in the Faith... The important thing is to get that child baptized and entered into the Communion of the Ekklesia... As to sins, the Psalm sings: "For behold, I was conceived in iniquity, and in sins did my mother bear me..." So that demonic attachments CAN come by simply being born, and the first step in Baptism into Christ is the Prayers of Exorcism to drive these out if they should happen to be there...

So that the Baptismal committment to live a repentant life for an infant is given to its parents...
For an adult, it is pledged by repentance unto Baptism, and lived thereafter as a membeer of the Body...

Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

That is beside the point. An adult has to repent in order to qualify, but an infant cannot...just as you said. Therefore, we do not expect him to make any confession in order to receive the blessings of God. Remember that Baptism is something from God; it is not something we do in order to appease God.

Yes, the baptism of the Spirit is from God. Accomplished with no assistance needed by humans. Therefore, no water is needed and God can do this at any time or place He wills.
Water baptism, on the other hand, is always done by humans as an outward sign expressing to humans what God has already done via the Spirit.
Let God do His job and stop taking it upon yourself to do the work by splashing H2O on little children who have no clue what or why you're splashing them.
Second, if your contention were true, parents would have no need for a priest or pastor to water baptize. A parent could simply baptize their own child while they give the child a bath. Just say "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit while rinsing out the no tears baby shampoo.
My point? You all have turned baby baptism into an idol.

 

[Lamb]

Can babies be conscious of their baptism?

Obviously you're not going to be asking any living babies this question. And equally obviously you do not have access to any babies who are in heaven so you will not be asking any of them this question while you are in this world. So isn't this question kind of unanswerable? Isn't it sort of pointless?

You might think it's pointless. The point really comes down to does it matter whether or not the child is conscious for baptism to be effective since it's from God? As DHoffmann said, the thread was based on something he wrote in another thread about babies not remembering their baptism so I wanted to point out that it doesn't matter whether the baby remembers since baptism comes from God and God remembers. The parents or guardians make the promise to keep the child in the faith and that is also with the help of God.

 

[Albion]

The child is baptized and the parent rears it in the Faith...So that the Baptismal committment to live a repentant life for an infant is given to its parents...

Arsenios

Yes, but this slant on the subject almost always falls on deaf ears with anyone who has been reared in the Anabaptist tradition, so that is why I tend not to make an issue of it when discussing baptism with such people.

The more effective approach IMO is to point out that the sacrament was instituted by God himself for our benefit. If that is recognized (and how can it not be, since Anabaptists talk as though they have to be baptized because it is an "obligation," etc. etc.?), it shows the idea of it being something we do for God instead of the other way around to be a weak argument. And if it is really God's sacrament (or "ordinance," as they prefer), the idea that it is validated only if the recipient comprehends all the things of God, is even less credible.

 

[MennoSota]

The parents or guardians make the promise to keep the child in the faith and that is also with the help of God.

So it's really just a baby dedication for parents to covenant to train up their children in the faith. Why the sprinkling?

 

[MennoSota]

Yes, but this slant on the subject almost always falls on deaf ears with anyone who has been reared in the Anabaptist tradition, so that is why I tend not to make an issue of it when discussing baptism with such people.

The more effective approach IMO is to point out that the sacrament was instituted by God himself for our benefit. If that is recognized (and how can it not be, since Anabaptists talk as though they have to be baptized because it is an "obligation," etc. etc.?), it shows the idea of it being something we do for God instead of the other way around to be a weak argument. And if it is really God's sacrament (or "ordinance," as they prefer), the idea that it is validated only if the recipient comprehends all the things of God, is even less credible.

You have never answered why you don't just go around sprinkling all humans in a general mass baptism upon any and all regardless of consent.
Why? If babies don't have to consent or be conscious of baptism, why not stretch that theory to all humanity at any age?

 

[Lamb]

You have never answered why you don't just go around sprinkling all humans in a general mass baptism upon any and all regardless of consent.
Why? If babies don't have to consent or be conscious of baptism, why not stretch that theory to all humanity at any age?

I have answered it multiple times. Baptizing without intent to teach (because baptism and teaching go hand in hand) would be cruel to do to a human because without teaching that human being about the Gospel any faith given in baptism would shrivel and potentially die. We need to be fed on God's Word, don't you believe that?

 

[MennoSota]

I have answered it multiple times. Baptizing without intent to teach (because baptism and teaching go hand in hand) would be cruel to do to a human because without teaching that human being about the Gospel any faith given in baptism would shrivel and potentially die. We need to be fed on God's Word, don't you believe that?

Hmmm...does the Bible say "baptize with the intent to teach"?
Would it work if you mass baptize the community with the intent to send them an evangelical dvd about the basics of Christianity?