Can babies be conscious of their baptism?

[Albion]

Means of grace? That is just church dogma. It doesn't matter if dogma is 1 day old or 1500 years old...it's still dogma.

So is everything else that Jesus taught--"dogma."

 

[Lamb]

Means of grace? That is just church dogma. It doesn't matter if dogma is 1 day old or 1500 years old...it's still dogma. In this case it is dogma that has no solid foundation in scripture.

Another example of a means of grace is Jesus using mud to make a blind man see.

It's so easy to be blind to the means of grace examples in scripture no matter how often it's pointed out.

 

[Josiah]

In this case it is dogma that has no solid foundation in scripture.

Yeah. You keep mandating that all (but you) MUST dismiss all denominational understanding, interpretation and teaching.... and go only by the exact words we all can see in the Bible. Okay. Thus, we are still waiting for the texts that teach all the prohibitions and limitations you keep talking about but refusing to quote - as you parrot, verbatim, the word-for-word spin of the Anabaptist/baptist denomination on this since 1523....

Yeah. Were ARE these verses you keep insisting exist in the Bible but no one ever saw until some Anabaptist German in 1523?

You know...

".... BUT thou canst NOT baptize any under the age of X!"
".... BUT thou canst NOT baptize any until they chooseth Jesus as their personal Savior and chanth the Sinner's Prayer!"
".... BUT thou canst NOT baptize any until such hath first wepthed buckets of tears in repentance!"
".... BUT thou canst NOT believe this is important since it is SO stressed and made equal to teach cuz it's just a waste of time and water!"


Yeah, where ARE these verses no one on the planet saw for 1500 years and so baptized babies until some German Anabaptist synergist saw them in 1523 and said, "WOWEY ZOWEY! How come no one notice these verses before me?!?!


See post 197



- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

The sudden, out-of-the-blue, invention of the Anabaptist/Baptist on their central, defining dogma centers in two things:

Anti-Paedobaptism.
"Paedo" = children.
The whole point is AGE.
It's anti-infant/child baptism.
It's "Those under the age of X are FORBIDDEN to be baptized."
It's "Yes, BUT, thou art FORBIDDEN to give baptism to those under the age of X"
We must use "X" because the Anabaptist "anti-paedobaptism" folks will never say what age "X" is, which means the whole prohibition is meaningless since no one knows at what age the prohibition expires.


Credobaptism.
"Credo" = I believe.
The whole point is what they have chosen Jesus as their personal savior and that they give adequate, public proof of such.
Those who have not chosen Jesus as their savior or who have not adequately given public proof of that are FORBIDDEN to be baptized.
It's "Yes, BUT, thou art FORBIDDEN to baptize any who hath not first chosen Jesus and adequately and publicly proven that."



Some Anbaptists/Baptists add other things too to the ever-growing list of prohibitions, limitations, mandates and prerequistes. Among these are....


"Must FIRST repent of their sins - and give adequate public proof of this." They disagree on HOW repentant they MUST be and how this is to be proven, making this requirement impossible to employ. But some place ENORMOUS emphasis that this is a prerecequist to baptism and that it must be PROHIBITED to any who has not first achieved and performed this.

"Must FIRST attained an adequate level of biblical and theological training." They disagree on HOW much training and knowledge and education MUST be in place, or how it is to be proven, but many will place ENORMOUS emphasis that the reciever MUST be knowledgeable and not ignorant. They disagree on HOW educated and non-ignorant they MUST be and how this is to be proven, making this requirement impossible to employ, but they STRESS that those who are biblically ignorant are FORBIDDEN to be baptized.


Where is the support for these sudden inventions of these German Anabaptist/Baptists in 1523? They gave none from Scripture; these are applications of their radical synergism in reaction to the claims of Catholicism that Baptism is a "Means of Grace." Their point was God CANNOT bless or give faith to one who is not FIRST able to contribute his part to the salvation process; babies and children CANNOT do what they need to do to gain salvation; they are too young to choose Jesus and too young to repent and too young to do good works - thus too young to be saved. What is too young? They'd never say. What about these too young? They invented yet another new dogma out of thin air - that children have no sin or at least aren't held accountable (thus the "Age of Accountability" notion often found among radical synergists).

There is nothing in Scripture that states these prohibitions, limitations and requirements. And so no one until 1523 ever thought of them or applied them. It is NOT a case that 100% of Christians from at least 63 AD until 1523 AD never noticed all the prohibitions stated in the Bible and thus didn't exclude all these people, it's that these prohibitions are never stated in the Bible. The Anabaptists/Baptists invented them. Because their radical synergism needed them.



- Josiah

 

[MennoSota]

Another example of a means of grace is Jesus using mud to make a blind man see.

It's so easy to be blind to the means of grace examples in scripture no matter how often it's pointed out.

Where does Jesus say "This is a means of grace" when he spits on the dirt and makes it mud?
Perhaps you are using grace with extreme liberal definition so that your use of grace has nothing to do with salvation but only refers to giving someone something they don't deserve. If so, then your use of infant baptism is still nothing more than getting an infant wet. God is not giving the child something they don't deserve when you sprinkle them. No mystical healing or regeneration is taking place. Therefore there is no grace being given by God when YOU perform a baptism on an infant. You are invoking and demanding from God something He has never promised he would do in baptism. You are teaching a gospel not taught in the Bible.

 

[Albion]

Where does Jesus say "This is a means of grace" when he spits on the dirt and makes it mud?

"Grace" is a divine favor, gift, blessing, etc.

It looks like that's what was involved when Jesus instituted the sacraments and created miracles such as the one referred to in this case when he cured a blind man.

 

[Josiah]

Where does Jesus say "This is a means of grace" when he spits on the dirt and makes it mud?

This has been explained to you..... over and over and over and over, time and time again, in several threads. Perhaps you disagree but your insistence on ignorance is well, not credible.

A "means of grace" is a means God employs as He blesses. It is NOT that He CANNOT bless "immediately" (without means) or "by fiat" (by His shear will) but that often He does employ some means. Lamm used the example of Jesus using a mud ball to give sight to the blind man. I used the example of parents killing a lamb and putting the blood on the doorpost of their homes to save their child. You often speak of God using the proclaimation/teaching of His Word. This has been explained to you since you came to this site, by several. Over and over and over and over. Is it that you don't READ what is posted to you (you have admitted that on a few occasions)? In which case, what use is there is "discussing" with you?


The rest of your post is the same old Anabaptist/Baptist verbatim echoing of their 16th Century invention.... with NOT ONE SCRIPTURE to support anything, all while you shout that we are all mandated to totally ignore any denominational or ecumenical understanding and interpretation and mandated to go only by the printed words on the pages of the Bible.... all while you just parrot verbatim the new synergistic inventions of the Anabaptist/Baptist denomination on this point and share not one Scripture that states all the new prohibitions, limitations and denials that are the distinctive dogmatic inventions of the Anabaptists/Baptists almost 500 years ago.


See posts 197, 203 and 204




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwxHzo0QVYY





.

 

[MennoSota]

"Grace" is a divine favor, gift, blessing, etc.

It looks like that's what was involved when Jesus instituted the sacraments and created miracles such as the one referred to in this case when he cured a blind man.

You are forcing grace onto baptism, but nowhere is baptism called a "means of grace" within the Bible. I really wish church dogmas would be biblically based rather than created from the figment of man's imagination...which is what infant baptism represents.

 

[Albion]

You are forcing grace onto baptism

Not in the least is that the case. The Bible indicates, with both of the sacraments, that grace is involved.

Acts 2:38, 22:16; Romans 6:1–4; 1 Corinthians 6:11, 12:13; Galatians 3:26–27; Ephesians 5:25-27; Colossians 2:11–12; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:18–22

 

[Lamb]

Where does Jesus say "This is a means of grace" when he spits on the dirt and makes it mud?
Perhaps you are using grace with extreme liberal definition so that your use of grace has nothing to do with salvation but only refers to giving someone something they don't deserve. If so, then your use of infant baptism is still nothing more than getting an infant wet. God is not giving the child something they don't deserve when you sprinkle them. No mystical healing or regeneration is taking place. Therefore there is no grace being given by God when YOU perform a baptism on an infant. You are invoking and demanding from God something He has never promised he would do in baptism. You are teaching a gospel not taught in the Bible.

Mud = Means
Jesus healing = grace

Now do you see it? There are many more examples throughout both the old and new testaments about the means of grace that God chooses to use...even though He doesn't have to.

 

[MennoSota]

Not in the least is that the case. The Bible indicates, with both of the sacraments, that grace is involved.

Acts 2:38, 22:16; Romans 6:1–4; 1 Corinthians 6:11, 12:13; Galatians 3:26–27; Ephesians 5:25-27; Colossians 2:11–12; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:18–22

Your abuse of interpretive skills is noted.
None of your passages teach or even infer a means of grace taking place through sacraments. It is entirely made-up church denominational dogma.
Specifically go through each passage and show how God provides saving grace through baptism in those verses. I suggest you cannot do so, which is why you just toss out the passage references without any hermeneutical effort. It gets tiresome to see such lack of effort or ability to prove a biblical point.
Ultimately I expect the pat answer of "tradition..."

 

[MennoSota]

Mud = Means
Jesus healing = grace

Now do you see it? There are many more examples throughout both the old and new testaments about the means of grace that God chooses to use...even though He doesn't have to.

Nope. Mud=mud.
Jesus healing = general grace, but not saving grace.
You can claim infant baptism as a general grace, but is ineffectual. God is not healing the infant nor saving the infant. God is doing nothing at all in the infant baptism. The only thing happening is parents and congregants getting photo opportunities.

 

[Albion]

No, the mud used was not useless mud. It was the vehicle used to cure a blind man's sight. As we know, Jesus often used ordinary physical objects to show us a spiritual reality--water in baptism, for example, or bread in communion, or even a touch of the hand.

Jesus healing = general grace, but not saving grace.

We were discussing Grace. The definition was presented for all to see. I am not surprised that you needed to change the focus to saving Grace after losing the point about Grace itself.

 

[MennoSota]

No, the mud used was not useless mud. It was the vehicle used to cure a blind man's sight. As we know, Jesus often used ordinary physical objects to show us a spiritual reality--water in baptism, for example, or bread in communion, or even a touch of the hand.


We were discussing Grace. The definition was presented for all to see. I am not surprised that you needed to change the focus to saving Grace after losing the point about Grace itself.

We need to define it because of the corrupted version espoused by Rome, which is not grace, but works.
Grace is God giving to us what we don't deserve.
Saving grace is taught in scripture by means of God choosing to adopt rebels.
Where is baptismal grace? If baptism is given by God to the undeserved, then why distinguish between John's baptism?
There is no grace in baptism.
Baptism is always a outward expression of what God has done in the gift of adoption, bought with a price. Since you and all others deny that an infant is saved via baptism, it makes baptism of no value in regards to grace. Therefore baptism is in no way a "means" of grace. Such a statement is a particular church dogma, not a biblical truth.

 

[Albion]

We need to define it because of the corrupted version espoused by Rome, which is not grace, but works.

It had already been defined here.

Grace is God giving to us what we don't deserve.

Examples of the various gifts have also been posted. See the list of Bible verses, for example, that I posted.

There is no grace in baptism.

That grace is also included in those verses.

 

[MennoSota]

It had already been defined here.

Indeed, which is why baptism has nothing to do with grace. Baptism is an obedient response to grace. It is not a means of invoking grace. No one can invoke grace. God is either gracious or he is not.
How does God express grace? This can be expressed in salvation. It can be expressed in healings. It can be expressed by God in many ways. It is not expressed by God in baptism. Baptism is a human expression of obedience to what God has done.

Examples of the various gifts have also been posted. See the list of Bible verses, for example, that I posted.

God graciously gives us gifts as he graciously adopts us. It is not saving grace. It is a general grace.
Baptism is not a gracious gift of God.

That grace is also included in those verses.

How does that relate to baptism?

 

[Josiah]

Baptism is an obedient response to grace.

YOUR mandate to all posting at CH is that ANY and ALL dogmatic statements MUST be the words we all can see on the pages of Scripture..... so, where does Scripture say that?

YOUR mandate to all posting at CH is that ANY and ALL denominational interpretations and understandings ("spin") be entirely ignored.... and yet that's all you do, just verbatim parrot the unique, new baptism spin of the Anabaptist/Baptist denomination.

God is either gracious or he is not F

Several here have quoted Scripture after Scripture of God using means to convey His grace (the word is convey, not the one you used, invoke). We given many examples (even of actions and faith and obedience of PARENTS conveying God's grace - even salvation - to their children). But you just ignore it. Every time. You have admitted that you don't read much of what is posted to you and I think that's the problem.

Baptism is a human expression of obedience to what God has done.

You've been making that dogmatic statement since you started posting here but can't find a single Scripture that remotely states that.... you just keep parroting the new denominational invention of the Anabaptist/Baptist denomination (mandating we ignore it) and forgetting to give any Scripture that states that (mandating that's all we should pay attention to).

See the list of Bible verses, for example, that I posted.

You haven't given any. Not one. Not in all the time you've been here at CH. We're all waiting on pens and needles.... because you insist you have the Scriptures taht state what you do, that you aren't saying anything that the words of Scripture don't also say, words that every Christian on the planet for nearly 1500 years never noticed, but fortunately along came this German synergist in 1523 who saw all these verses and shouted: "WOWEY ZOWEY! Why didn't any Christian before me notice all these verses!!!!"

"Baptism is a response to grace."
"Baptism is a human expression of obedience to what God has done."
"Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday."
"Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath wept buckets of tears in repentance."
"Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath chooseth Jesus as their personal savior and gaveth adequate public proof of that."
"Baptism does nothing and is a waste of time and it was foolish of Jesus to command it and for the Apostles to stress it so much."

Waiting for those verses...... because you mandate that that's all that matters and that some German synergist found them in 1523; waiting for you to stop the verbatim parroting of the new invention, the denominational spin and understanding of baptism that you mandate we all ignore (but so far, taht's all you have done on this, for months now).



See posts 197, 203, 204, 207 And then read them.




.

 

[Albion]

Indeed, which is why baptism has nothing to do with grace.

Then I would recommend that you revisit the definition since it associates baptism with grace in the way that the Bible does.

How does that relate to baptism?

Grace is imparted in baptism.

 

[Josiah]

If you dare, pick up this video at 4:30.... that leaves about 14 minutes. That's too long for some but it's very informative and engaging.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q310Hg2Ifg&t=207s

 

[MennoSota]

Then I would recommend that you revisit the definition since it associates baptism with grace in the way that the Bible does.


Grace is imparted in baptism.

No, grace is not imparted in baptism. By you making that statement you are saying that baptism saves. It does not.
Grace is imparted at salvation/adoption. Baptism is a ceremony instituted by God to commemorate what God has already done in saving/adopting someone.
Conclusion: Baptizing an infant is putting the cart before the horse and is nowhere taught in scripture. Infant baptism is solely a man-made creation of church dogma not God ordained requirement.