Can babies be conscious of their baptism?

[ImaginaryDay2]

Red herrings.

Not at all. "proven scientific fact" are your words. Any good scientist would recognize that as nonsense. Science is based on conclusion from inference, which is not the method you've chosen. You've shown yourself to draw conclusions from subjective opinion, which should be rejected.

And, since you are well versed in "proven scientific fact" (and it goes to what infants are conscious of) - how long did Timothy have knowledge of the scriptures?

 

[Josiah]

infant baptism as infants are never mentioned nor inferred in any passage on baptism.

Red herring.


Where are blonde haired persons baptized in the Bible? If you can't find a bunch of examples, does your denomination dogmatically forbid them from baptism? Where are Americans baptized in the Bible? If you can't find a bunch of examples, does your denomination dogmatically forbid them?


This is one of two apologetic arguments Anabaptists/Baptists use (they have no Scriptures) for this new invention. The argument is: We are FORBIDDEN to do anything unless it is consistently and clearly illustrated in examples that happen to be recorded in the Bible. Not only is that a denial of Sola Scriptura but it's silly. And an argument they themselves reject in EVERY other situation: After all, they make this argument by posting on the internet - which is never once illustrated in the Bible.... and during Sunday worship where probably 90%+ of what they are doing is never once illustrated in the Bible. They use gentiles to administer Baptism (never once illustrated in the Bible) and a tank behind a curtain in the front of the chapel (never once illustrated in the Bible). They have Communion 4 times a year by passing around in the pews to everyone a bowl of little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice to females as well as males (NONE of which is ever illustrated in the Bible). They REJECT their own apologetic - yet build their entire defining dogma on what they themselves consistently reject.


You force your denomination's agenda on the scriptures, which shows you consider tradition to be superior to the scriptures. Sola Scriptura is being thrown out as your new, unique denominational tradition is claimed in its stead.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

How long did Timothy have knowledge of the scriptures?

I'll assume Menno has no subjective opinion, although the bible tells us and it's clear from the passage referred to that Timothy as an infant was quite conscious in this regard.

 

[MennoSota]

Not at all. "proven scientific fact" are your words. Any good scientist would recognize that as nonsense. Science is based on conclusion from inference, which is not the method you've chosen. You've shown yourself to draw conclusions from subjective opinion, which should be rejected.

And, since you are well versed in "proven scientific fact" (and it goes to what infants are conscious of) - how long did Timothy have knowledge of the scriptures?

Again, where does the text provide evidence of infant baptism.
Answer: The text shows no evidence. The reader must infer infant baptism into the text from later traditions imposed by the denominations.
Tradition therefore takes greater precedence than the scriptures,, which means the idea of Sola Scriptura is thrown out by anyone promoting infant baptism as a biblical teaching.
You cannot have Sola Scriptura and infant baptism at the same time. Pick what is more important, the Bible or your traditions.

 

[Josiah]

Again, where does the text provide evidence of infant baptism.

Again, where does the text provide evidence of blonde haired persons baptized in the Bible? If you can't find a bunch of examples, does your denomination dogmatically forbid them from baptism? Where are Americans baptized in the Bible? If you can't find a bunch of examples, does your denomination dogmatically forbid them?

This is one of two apologetic arguments Anabaptists/Baptists use (they have no Scriptures) for this new invention. The argument is: We are FORBIDDEN to do anything unless it is consistently and clearly illustrated in examples that happen to be recorded in the Bible. Not only is that a denial of Sola Scriptura but it's silly. And an argument they themselves reject in EVERY other situation: After all, they make this argument by posting on the internet - which is never once illustrated in the Bible.... and during Sunday worship where probably 90%+ of what they are doing is never once illustrated in the Bible. They use gentiles to administer Baptism (never once illustrated in the Bible) and a tank behind a curtain in the front of the chapel (never once illustrated in the Bible). They have Communion 4 times a year by passing around in the pews to everyone a bowl of little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice to females as well as males (NONE of which is ever illustrated in the Bible). They REJECT their own apologetic - yet build their entire defining dogma on what they themselves consistently reject.


You force your denomination's agenda on the scriptures, which shows you consider the new tradition of a denomination to be superior to the scriptures. Sola Scriptura is being thrown out as your new, unique denominational tradition is claimed in its stead.

The text shows no evidence

Correct. You have provided NOT ONE SCRIPTURE (or anything else for that matter) to support the new dogmatic invention of the Anabaptist/Baptist denomination at it's distinctive dogma of baptism.... NOTHING that states all its denials, prohibitions, mandates and prerequisites.



.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Again, where does the text provide evidence of infant baptism.
Answer: The text shows no evidence. The reader must infer infant baptism into the text from later traditions imposed by the denominations.
Tradition therefore takes greater precedence than the scriptures,, which means the idea of Sola Scriptura is thrown out by anyone promoting infant baptism as a biblical teaching.
You cannot have Sola Scriptura and infant baptism at the same time. Pick what is more important, the Bible or your traditions.

The reas0n that subjectivism doesn't work, although you appeal to Sola Scriptura also, is that the individual is his own guide in spiritual matters. In doing so, one rejects his or her own guiding rule. What I mean by that is lerning does not happen in a vacuum. One does not read the bible and come out of it with a fully formed Anabaptist position without having been trained/taught under Anabaptists. Infant baptism is rejected because it isn't given serious study, not because it isn't there.

But this thread isn't a defense of infant baptism, but asks what infants are conscious of-hence my question about Timothy, which you can't answer.

 

[MennoSota]

The reas0n that subjectivism doesn't work, although you appeal to Sola Scriptura also, is that the individual is his own guide in spiritual matters. In doing so, one rejects his or her own guiding rule. What I mean by that is lerning does not happen in a vacuum. One does not read the bible and come out of it with a fully formed Anabaptist position without having been trained/taught under Anabaptists. Infant baptism is rejected because it isn't given serious study, not because it isn't there.

But this thread isn't a defense of infant baptism, but asks what infants are conscious of-hence my question about Timothy, which you can't answer.

My meme expresses what infants are aware of...

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

My meme expresses what infants are aware of...

-___-

 

[MennoSota]

The hermeneutical gymnastics needed for infant baptism to be expressed in scripture is head shaking. The "let's make it up" method of interpretation isn't for me. Nor should it be for any person who wishes to let scripture speak for itself.
As for what infants comprehend...that is hard to measure. Given the fact that no human I have ever met can remember their infant baptism, I would suppose it is almost nothing.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

What infants comprehend has actually been measured. But unless one researches, one wouldn't necessarily know. I've chalked up most of your responses to that very reason. I think that's being generous.

 

[Lamb]

The hermeneutical gymnastics needed for infant baptism to be expressed in scripture is head shaking. The "let's make it up" method of interpretation isn't for me. Nor should it be for any person who wishes to let scripture speak for itself.
As for what infants comprehend...that is hard to measure. Given the fact that no human I have ever met can remember their infant baptism, I would suppose it is almost nothing.

Remembering something...does that mean that God wasn't at work by His Word in that person? You see, that's the point. God is at work in baptism and whether we can remember it (can you remember your first birth?) doesn't mean that it didn't happen or that God couldn't be effective in His will.

 

[MennoSota]

Remembering something...does that mean that God wasn't at work by His Word in that person? You see, that's the point. God is at work in baptism and whether we can remember it (can you remember your first birth?) doesn't mean that it didn't happen or that God couldn't be effective in His will.

Lämmchen, you are just speaking your church dogma here. It's just church speak. Church speak does not equal biblical truth.
God is at work all the time, regardless of whether an infant is baptized or not. There is no mystical event happening in infant baptism. Such thinking is an imaginary event constructed by church dogma from your denomination. The Bible just doesn't support your contention.

 

[atpollard]

Red herring.

Where are blonde haired persons baptized in the Bible? If you can't find a bunch of examples, does your denomination dogmatically forbid them from baptism? Where are Americans baptized in the Bible? If you can't find a bunch of examples, does your denomination dogmatically forbid them?

It is not a red herring when vague claims are being made that scripture clearly shows infants being baptized. If people were claiming that scripture specifically made reference to blonde haired Americans being baptized (or being forbidden baptism) then it would be appropriate to challenge those unsupported claims with a request for scriptural support or an admission that there is no clear statement on that specific subject in scripture.

 

[Albion]

It is as simple as this.

When the Bible teaches, as it does, that "whole households" were baptized, most of us and the overwhelming majority of Christians and Christian churches BELIEVE IT.

However, other people choose not to, so they claim that it is unreasonable for us to think that those words mean anything at all.

Then they pretend that it is we who have added to Scripture when, in reality, it is they who have subtracted from it in order to stay in synch with the teachings of some denomination or other splinter group that they identify with.

 

[MennoSota]

It is as simple as this.

When the Bible teaches, as it does, that "whole households" were baptized, most of us and the overwhelming majority of Christians and Christian churches BELIEVE IT.

However, other people choose not to, so they claim that it is unreasonable for us to think that those words mean anything at all.

Then they pretend that it is we who have added to Scripture when, in reality, it is they who have subtracted from it in order to stay in synch with the teachings of some denomination or other splinter group that they identify with.

You jump to a conclusion with no supporting evidence. You should admit this.
You take the phrase "whole households" and invoke infant baptism into the phrase. Why? Because your tradition invokes it. Thus, you raise up tradition to be equal with scripture and therefore reject Sola Scriptura as being greater than tradition.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]

You jump to a conclusion with no supporting evidence. You should admit this. You take the phrase "whole households" and invoke anti-paedobaptism into the phrase, that those under the age of X were dogmaticly forbidden. Why? Because your new Anabaptist/Baptist tradition invokes it because of its radical synergism. Thus, you raise up your denomination's new tradition to be above scripture and therefore reject Sola Scriptura.

 

[Josiah]

It is not a red herring when vague claims are being made that scripture clearly shows infants being baptized. If people were claiming that scripture specifically made reference to blonde haired Americans being baptized (or being forbidden baptism) then it would be appropriate to challenge those unsupported claims with a request for scriptural support or an admission that there is no clear statement on that specific subject in scripture.

The insistence is that it must be proven that those under the age of X were not dogmatically forbidden to be baptize - and unless that proof is given, they must be disallowed today. It is a red herring (and quite silly) since...

1. This same proof is not demanded of ANYTHING else vis-a-vis Baptism. Where is the evidence that blonde haired people were not forbidden? Where is the evidence that Americans were not forbidden? Yet, the Anabaptist/Baptist doesn't forbid them.


2. There is a absurd rubric being employed that the Anabaptist/Baptist themselves repudiate as stupid: That we cannot do what is not clearly and often illustrated as having been done in the few examples that happen to be recorded in the NT. Why does it matter if no cases of baptisms under the age of X can be found in the NT? Why does that matter? No cases of blonde haired people can be found being baptized in the NT either but the Anabaptists/Baptists don't dogmatically forbid them. They do ALL KINDS of things (including posting on the internet) that are NEVER ONCE illustrated as done in the NT thus proving they reject their whole apologetic.


3. NO ONE is saying that we should permit those under the age of X BECAUSE we have X number of baptisms recorded in the NT where the receiver was under of 7 day of age. You are TRYING to impose their silly apologetic on the rest of Christians. But IT IS A FACT: The Anabaptist INSISTENCE is a lie, it is an obvious falsehood, that "every example of Baptism that just happens to be recorded in the NT was of one over the age of X who had first wept buckets of tears in repentance, first chose Jesus as their personal savior and made adequate public proof of it, and first requested to be baptized." It's false, it's wrong, it's a lie. Even if it mattered. Several here have ONLY pointed out the several examples of "whole households" being baptized. Unless you can prove that EVERY PERSON in EVERY ONE OF THOSE HOUSEHOLDS first attained the age of X, first wept buckets of tears in repentance, first chose Jesus as their personal Savior and gave adequate public proof of such and first requested to be baptized... unless you can do that, then your apologetic is false even if that apologetic was one Anabaptist actually accept (and they don't). THAT'S THE POINT they have been making (and you know it, my friend).



A blessed Easter season to all.....



- Josiah




.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

God is at work all the time, regardless of whether an infant is baptized or not. There is no mystical event happening in infant baptism. Such thinking is an imaginary event constructed by church dogma from your denomination. The Bible just doesn't support your contention.

You've presented a bit of a dichotomy. either "God is at work all the time, regardless of whether an infant is baptized or not" or he isn't - which has also been your contention ("there is no mystical event happening in baptism").

To be clear we do not say that a "mystical event" happens in baptism - that's just how your mind has worked it out because of reasons I've stated earlier - you've had neither the time nor inclination to research the opposite pov. The Lutheran church would say that the grace of God is extended to the infant at baptism - hence, "God is at work all the time".

 

[Pedrito]

Me in Post #192:

I therefore ask Lämmchen to precisely define what “God working in that human according to Jesus' command” actually means with respect to baptised infants – i.e. what precise benefit(s) does a baby receive from God as a result of being baptised, that he or she would have missed out on had they not been baptised.

In response, Lämmchen in Post #237 provided a list of Scripture references under the heading "WHAT BLESSINGS DO WE RECEIVE FROM GOD IN BAPTISM?", for which I thanked her.

==============================================================================================

Included in that list was:

“1 Peter 3:20-21. … in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it a few people, eight in all, were saved through water — and this water symbolizes Baptism that now saves you also. ”
and
“ Mark 16:16. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. ”

In the light of the responsive context in which the verses were offered, and having been told that babies can have faith (and one element of faith is belief), I drew the following conclusions in Post #239:

“1 Peter 3:20-21 – Babies that are baptised are saved. Therefore those that are not baptised are lost.”
and
“Mark 16:16 – Babies that are baptised (we have been told that those babies can also have faith) are saved. Unbaptised babies are not.”

==============================================================================================

In Post #240, Albion stated:

1. It is not the case that a baptized child is guaranteed of salvation. This point has been explained on these forums repeatedly. The first and the last verses cited were incorrectly interpreted, therefore.

2. We do not know the status of a baby who dies unbaptized.

Albion has clearly defined his understanding of what happens to say, a 6 month old baby that dies unbaptised – i.e. nobody knows.

What seems to be lacking is his precise understanding (especially in the light of “It is not the case that a baptized child is guaranteed of salvation” and “Infant baptism makes the child part of the visible church of Christ, forgives original sin...”) regarding what happens to a 6 month old baby if it dies after being baptised.

So I ask Albion (I ask you, Albion) to provide a precise and succinct explanation (like the quoted point 2 above) regarding what would happen to (the status of) a baptised 6 month old baby that happened to die. Then we could all have that same precise, unequivocal understanding.

(If a baby is conscious of its baptism (and what it means for them), then depending on the information Albion supplies, it could well mean that baby receives great personal comfort.)

I offer thanks in advance.


(I apologise to anyone for whom this discussion regarding tragic deaths prompts deeply unfortunate feelings. But I suggest that an understanding of the original Apostolic Gospel could help alleviate uncertainty and concerns about a departed one’s status and future.)

 

[Albion]

Albion has clearly defined his understanding of what happens to say, a 6 month old baby that dies unbaptised – i.e. nobody knows.

What seems to be lacking is his precise understanding (especially in the light of “It is not the case that a baptized child is guaranteed of salvation” and “Infant baptism makes the child part of the visible church of Christ, forgives original sin...”) regarding what happens to a 6 month old baby if it dies after being baptised.

The explanation concerned unbaptized children, not baptized ones, and was given in response to you asking the following--

If unbaptised infants are lost if they die, where does that lead?

If unbaptised infants are not lost, then could the stated benefits of baptising babies, need some review?

........................................................................................................................................................................................

So I ask Albion (I ask you, Albion) to provide a precise and succinct explanation (like the quoted point 2 above) regarding what would happen to (the status of) a baptised 6 month old baby that happened to die. Then we could all have that same precise, unequivocal understanding.

They are saved.



Now, for the life of me, I do not know how those two answers can be more precise, succinct, and unequivocal than that.










.