Five Reasons Why Babies Should be Baptized...

[Lamb]

Let's be precise. Some will probably believe that babies do not believe without asserting that it is impossible for babies to believe. Saying that babies can't believe is asserting that it is impossible isn't it?

I believe that babies can believe, so don't ask me

 

[MoreCoffee]

I believe that babies can believe, so don't ask me

John the Baptist's experience in the womb suggests that the Holy Spirit works in babies even before they are born but that is not why babies are baptised.

 

[Josiah]

Babies can understand and learn many things. It's basic child development.

So let me ask - do you recall when you understood what a 'tree' was - it's shape, texture? Do you recall the first time you understood that when a person leaves a room, it doesn't mean they're "gone"? Most of us don't recall these things, yet we learn them. We grasp the concept. It becomes working knowledge. Did Timothy's caregivers recognize when he 'understood' scripture? Perhaps, perhaps not. But they acted, from his infancy, to bring him up in the word of God.

So Baptism doesn't bestow some special miracle on the infant where scripture is filtered in by osmosis, and I wasn't implying anything of the sort.

1. "Babies can't believe" of course is correct, but misleading since NO ONE can. Babies are no worse here than a 42 year old with an IQ of 230, 5 Ph.D.'s and who has memorized every word of the Bible - both are equally unable to believe. "NO ONE is CAPABLE of believing without the Holy Spirit" the Bible proclaims. Faith is the "free gift of God" the Bible proclaims. That smart man can cognatively understand the tenets of Christianity (and those of Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Agnosticism, etc.) but he CANNOT trust/rely on such (faith). "NOT by our efforts lest anyone can boast." Thus, those who claim that those under the magical age of "X" cannot believe are technically correct but evading the point that NO ONE can. ONLY God can give faith. Faith is the free gift of God. Thus it begs the question: What is it about those under the magical age of "X" that renders God impotent?


2. SO much theological debate stems from two opposing views: Monergism vs. Synergism. Monergism holds that Jesus is the Savior and Jesus does the saving. Synergism holds that salvation is a progressive, cooperative process where God does His part and self does self's part and together (if each adequently does their part!) we eventually are saved. Monergists in my experience tend not to have a problem with the idea that God can give faith to a baby, God can save regardless of age (HOWEVER He does that). Synergisits tend to reject this since in their view, those under a certain age and IQ and education CANNOT fulfill their part of the deal and thus since Jesus is only supplying SOME of what is needed, that person remains unsaved. The oddity in all this is Calvinist Anabaptist (a contradiction if there ever was one), who hold to monergism (and a radical form of soverignty of God) YET hold that babies can't do their part and thus can't be justified. Very odd but very rare (not too many Calvinist Anabaptists around). It's odd too to see some Catholics (who are synergists BUT hold to infant baptism) but this is a result of Catholicism's stress on progressive salvation (some hold that God GIVES grace in baptism but this is like "lighting the pilot light" as one of my Catholic teachers put it, it just STARTS things).



Soli DEO Gloria



- Josiah

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I clicked those links and do not see anybody (I didn't read everything snerfle wrote) say "babies cannot believe" not did anybody say "God cannot make babies believe"

The baby cannot understand, so it cannot believe so it cannot repent so it cannot follow the command given by the the Holy Spirit to repent AND be baptized.
http://christianityhaven.com/showth...y-Babies-Should-be-Baptized&p=94896#post94896

All I saw that was really "out there"

 

[MoreCoffee]

All I saw that was really "out there"

I suspect that atpollard is using "cannot" with the meaning of "does not" but he can explain his meaning if he needs to.

 

[atpollard]

I suspect that atpollard is using "cannot" with the meaning of "does not" but he can explain his meaning if he needs to.

Yup.
But that was part of 'the baptism that must not be named in this thread' discussion which I have abandoned as requested.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yup.
But that was part of 'the baptism that must not be named in this thread' discussion which I have abandoned as requested.

I created a thread called Credobaptism and Paedobaptism. You can name both in it. It might be a good place to continue the debate of that which cannot be named in here

:smirk:

 

[atpollard]

All I saw that was really "out there"

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

This:

All I saw that was really "out there"

Was a response to this:

I don't see anybody asserting that it is impossible for babies to believe. Certainly not that God cannot cause a baby to believe.

By "out there", I was referring back to MC questioning whether anyone was asserting that it was impossible for babies to believe. I quoted your post as being the only thing I could find (the only thing that was out there in the thread that I could find). That has nothing to do with this:

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

So what is your point?

 

[Lamb]

So we're all in agreement then that babies CAN believe?

 

[atpollard]

So we're all in agreement then that babies CAN believe?

No Josiah is correct. No one can believe. God can give the gift of faith to anyone (even a baby) and enable them to believe.

As MoreCoffee pointed out, the real question is DO all babies believe (or at least, all of the babies you are baptizing)?
God CAN do almost anything.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No Josiah is correct. No one can believe. ...

At this point in the debate the wisdom of the bishops in council at Trent comes to the fore. Making baptism depend on something in an individual human being is folly.

ON BAPTISM...

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that little children, for that they have not actual faith, are not, after having received baptism, to be reckoned amongst the faithful; and that, for this cause, they are to be rebaptised when they have attained to years of discretion; or, that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted, than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be baptised in the faith alone of the Church; let him be anathema.

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that those who have been thus baptised when children, are, when they have grown up, to be asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptised; and that, in case they answer that they will not, they are to be left to their own will; and are not to be compelled meanwhile to a Christian life by any other penalty, save that they be excluded from the participation of the Eucharist, and of the other sacraments, until they repent; let him be anathema. ​

Anathema is to be understood as "cut off from the Catholic Church" in the above canons. I thought I'd add the explanation because many people take the word to mean all sorts of things that it does not mean.​

Baptism is not administered by the church because an individual can or does believe. Babies are not baptised because they individually can or do believe.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

A bit of levity

 

[Lamb]

No Josiah is correct. No one can believe. God can give the gift of faith to anyone (even a baby) and enable them to believe.

As MoreCoffee pointed out, the real question is DO all babies believe (or at least, all of the babies you are baptizing)?
God CAN do almost anything.

I agree with Josiah that no one can believe in God without the Spirit first giving faith so that person can believe. We can't come to God on our own. It is by His grace.

Once faith is given, the baby DOES believe. Now, I think your question seems more to be asking, does that baby reject faith and the Holy Spirit and could that happen moments after or months after or years after? Of course we cannot know if that happens, but that doesn't make the baptism invalid. God did what He promised to do. That is why baptism and teaching go hand in hand. Keep teaching the child. It could be that the Spirit isn't giving up on that child and will by grace give faith again after hearing the word.

 

[Josiah]

As MoreCoffee pointed out, the real question is DO all babies believe (or at least, all of the babies you are baptizing)?
God CAN do almost anything.

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]


Seems to me, that's changing the subject AGAIN. You already agreed that babies CAN be given faith, so the point that we can't baptize babies because they can't believe has been surrendered.


But let me just say this: I have faith. God has given me that free gift, performing that miracle. And I have had faith for longer than I can remember. I was baptized. Can I PROVE with some verse of the Bible that the SOLE reason I have faith is because I was baptized? No. Can I PROVE with a quote of a verse of Scripture that the baptism I received even had a role in that? No. Can you do the opposite? No. Now..... how does that prove that we are forbidden to administer baptism to one until they have celebrated their "X" birthday? How does that prove that we are forbidden to administer baptism until they have uttered "The Sinner's Prayer" or adequately responded to an Altar Call or got enough correct answers on some quiz or gained enough hours of Bible school? What does the reality that I HAVE faith and WAS Baptized prove or disprove about that?


The "real question" (as you put it) is this: The Bible commands us to go and baptize and teach (the Great Commission), just as it commands us to love (the Great Commandment). Now, where is the prohibition for those under the magical age of "X?" The arguments seem to be two things: 1) If the Bible doesn't specially INCLUDE a group by name, they are thus forbidden and we are prohibited from baptizing or teaching or loving them. I find that apologetic and rubric absurd, I think the "burden of proof" is on those who are adding a prohibition such as "this is the verse that means we are prohibited from loving this group of people...." 2) There are many things associated with baptizing and teaching and loving, LOTS of things associated with faith and life... and unless ALL these things have been completed, none of them can be effectual or used by God. You have often pointed out associations and linked them in an endless sequence of "THEN" (I have no idea where your chain ends, if it does).


And while I appreciate your uber-Calvinist "OSAS" theology (and we should not discuss that here), very few share that. I realize that some who were baptized SEEM at least to not now have the divine gift of faith, but outside the confines of OSAS, that's entirely irrelevant to whether God can or cannot give faith via some Means of Grace (another subject again) and CERTAINLY irrelevant to any substantiation that we are prohibited from baptizing or teaching any under the magical age of "X" or until they have uttered "The Sinner's Prayer" or attained enough credits in Christian Education or came forward for an Altar Call. I can see how you would deny any value in baptism because it SEEMS to you SOME who were baptized don't believe.... but then by the same reasoning, you'd need to forbid Christian Education and preaching as well since it's likely SOME may SEEM to you no longer have faith even though they did hear a Gospel sermon or did go to a Billy Graham Crusade. I think your OSAS application to this issue is..... flawed at least.



Soli Deo Gloria



- Josiah

 

[atpollard]

Making baptism depend on something in an individual human being is folly.

I don't know that I would describe it as "depending on something in the individual". That would indeed be folly.

Baptism just seems like something you should be there for. I would not baptize someone while they were asleep, but it is not because I think the baptism would be ineffective without them providing the magic ingredient ... it just seems like something they should be awake for.

The flaw with the Bishops of Trent is that it is ultimately an 'appeal to authority' argument. So it is only as valid as one's confidence in the individuals that issued the statements. I prefer scripture where I can listen to the exegesis and see if it makes sense in the larger context and within the framework of all of the other scripture. I don't really know what to do with a Catholic appeal to church authority.

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]


Seems to me, that's changing the subject AGAIN. You already agreed that babies CAN be given faith, so the point that we can't baptize babies because they can't believe has been surrendered.


But let me just say this: I have faith. God has given me that free gift, performing that miracle. And I have had faith for longer than I can remember. I was baptized. Can I PROVE with some verse of the Bible that the SOLE reason I have faith is because I was baptized? No. Can I PROVE with a quote of a verse of Scripture that the baptism I received even had a role in that? No. Can you do the opposite? No. Now..... how does that prove that we are forbidden to administer baptism to one until they have celebrated their "X" birthday? How does that prove that we are forbidden to administer baptism until they have uttered "The Sinner's Prayer" or adequately responded to an Altar Call or got enough correct answers on some quiz or gained enough hours of Bible school? What does the reality that I HAVE faith and WAS Baptized prove or disprove about that?


The "real question" (as you put it) is this: The Bible commands us to go and baptize and teach (the Great Commission), just as it commands us to love (the Great Commandment). Now, where is the prohibition for those under the magical age of "X?" The arguments seem to be two things: 1) If the Bible doesn't specially INCLUDE a group by name, they are thus forbidden and we are prohibited from baptizing or teaching or loving them. I find that apologetic and rubric absurd, I think the "burden of proof" is on those who are adding a prohibition such as "this is the verse that means we are prohibited from loving this group of people...." 2) There are many things associated with baptizing and teaching and loving, LOTS of things associated with faith and life... and unless ALL these things have been completed, none of them can be effectual or used by God. You have often pointed out associations and linked them in an endless sequence of "THEN" (I have no idea where your chain ends, if it does).


And while I appreciate your uber-Calvinist "OSAS" theology (and we should not discuss that here), very few share that. I realize that some who were baptized SEEM at least to not now have the divine gift of faith, but outside the confines of OSAS, that's entirely irrelevant to whether God can or cannot give faith via some Means of Grace (another subject again) and CERTAINLY irrelevant to any substantiation that we are prohibited from baptizing or teaching any under the magical age of "X" or until they have uttered "The Sinner's Prayer" or attained enough credits in Christian Education or came forward for an Altar Call. I can see how you would deny any value in baptism because it SEEMS to you SOME who were baptized don't believe.... but then by the same reasoning, you'd need to forbid Christian Education and preaching as well since it's likely SOME may SEEM to you no longer have faith even though they did hear a Gospel sermon or did go to a Billy Graham Crusade. I think your OSAS application to this issue is..... flawed at least.



Soli Deo Gloria



- Josiah

Not mine.
Those are not my beliefs, so I do not accept ownership of them.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I don't know that I would describe it as "depending on something in the individual". That would indeed be folly.

So an adult who presents for baptism does not do so of his own accord/volition, but it is a work of the Holy Spirit?

 

[atpollard]

So an adult who presents for baptism does not do so of his own accord/volition, but it is a work of the Holy Spirit?

Strange as it seems (at least to me), that is what scripture claims. Good old Arminianism always made more sense, it just isn't as well supported by the body of scripture.

If you are heading towards an 'I got you' (I really wish you did, it would make life much easier than trying to fit all of the scriptural pieces to the puzzle together searching for Truth), then make sure you really have 'got' me. Go to those verses in context and see what else is going on along with just baptism. There seems to be a moment of complete transformation being discussed and called for. It all needs to fit together and make sense both to the simple and the profound. That's how Jesus rolls in scripture. Like the chat with Nicodemus. Simple truths to get a baby in Christ started and deeply profound truths to keep scholars in awe of who God is and how he works. Genesis 1 is the same way.

So figure out what it meant when Jesus or Peter or Paul called someone to be baptized. What does it mean that their whole house was baptized. What does it mean to be baptized and how is that related to being saved and how is that different? Given all of this, what does it mean to baptize a baby or an adult today.

I am not as dogmatically closed minded as I might seem. Opinions do not impress me, no matter how many times they are repeated or how often I am accused of some beliefs that I do not have. I tend to prefer scripture. I am at a disadvantage in this topic because most of the obvious questions raised about the scriptures presented (including those in the video) will quickly lead away from the narrow focus of this topic.

Ultimately, the fact that babies get baptized all the time means that nothing physically prevents anyone from baptizing a baby. The title of the thread is "Why SHOULD babies be baptized" but the only questions and answers deemed appropriate are why CAN babies be baptized. There is no reason that I can think of why babies CAN'T be baptized (assuming sprinkling rather than immersion ... otherwise there is a drowning risk and you should take precautions to prevent aspirating water). Nobody really wants to talk about SHOULD babies be baptized, either here or on the other topic. I have just accepted that.

 

[Cassia]

I was going to put in my 2c with a summary of my 32 posts in this thread but that function didn't work this time from the reply count so couldn't remember what my answers were. Going blind I don't think baptism is as important as dedicated parentle guidance. My daughter had asked about baptism 5 yrs ago and I said it was a catholic thing and that we were Protestants. I haven't learnt much more about infant baptism since.