Can babies be conscious of their baptism?

[MennoSota]

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".

God chooses as He wills, not as the Lutheran Church chooses when it baptizes infants.
You are forcing God. Let me say that again. You are forcing God by demanding that God extend His unmerited favor when You baptize an infant.
You seem blind to the fact that you are turning an unmerited favor into a merited favor by virtue of you making an unbiblical statement that "the grace of God is extended to the infant at baptism."
Nowhere in scripture can you find God making that statement. Nowhere in the Bible does God make the promise that you have asserted.
If you make an assertion that God doesn't make, who is the liar? Is it God or is it you?
As for God being at work all the time, this is biblical. God never sleeps and never slumbers. God raises up nations and tears down nations. God causes his creation to exist by his will alone. What God doesn't do is extend his grace at your command and infant baptism. Such a statement as yours is why so many Lutherans and Catholics are spending eternity in hell. They put their trust in church dogma that told them their infant baptism and confirmation class secured their salvation when it never did. All it secured was a positive nod of approval in their local church.
Please stop teaching something God doesn't teach.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

As for God being at work all the time, this is biblical. God never sleeps and never slumbers. God raises up nations and tears down nations. God causes his creation to exist by his will alone. What God doesn't do is extend his grace at your command and infant baptism.

You seem confused and have presented two opinions again. Is God at work all the time, or is he not?

Also, please stop misrepresenting my statements, saying that God works "at (our) command". No one has said this or implied it.

 

[MennoSota]

You seem confused and have presented two opinions again. Is God at work all the time, or is he not?

Also, please stop misrepresenting my statements, saying that God works "at (our) command". No one has said this or implied it.

Here is what you said:

The Lutheran church would say that the grace of God is extended to the infant at baptism

That statement nullifies unmerited favor. It demands merited favor by virtue of baptism. You refuse to grasp the contradiction of your statement.
Second and most important the statement is unsupported in scripture. In truth I would say your claim is imaginary.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Okay, if someone gives you a gift, did you merit the gift or did the giver just do it without thought of you meriting it? That's why grace is called unmerited favor. And who better to receive such a gift than an infant?

And, as I've said, one would have no knowledge of what is supported in scripture if one has not researched it.

Btw, you've still said nothing about my question regarding Timothy's knowledge of scripture; but I think that's because the answer would unravel a bit of the mindset you have about what infants are conscious of. Some pills are hard to swallow.

 

[Lamb]

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.

This is a really good post! Denying that there were infants in entire households is blind to what life was like in those days and how the Jews felt about the family instead of individualism. It's so important to know their mindset instead of putting the modern twist on something to try to make their own dogma work.

 

[Josiah]

You are forcing God. Let me say that again. You are forcing God by demanding that God extend His unmerited favor when You baptize an infant.

Wrong.


The "forcing" is by you: You force God to withhold His blessings from children (at least via baptism) insisting that God CANNOT use baptism. As those of us on the biblical/historic/orthodox side, NONE of us states that God is mandated to do.... anything.... to anyone. YOU are the one telling God what He can and (in this case) CANNOT do. You have repeatedly conveyed a very small, very limited and rather impotent God (yet another thing that makes me wonder how a Calvinist can also be a Baptist). It's the Anabaptist/baptist view that God CANNOT do or use some things (at least if the receiver is under the age of X).... it is the Anabaptist/Baptist position that God is impotent to save in some situations and thus we are dogmatically forbidden to do things that just highlight His impotence.


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, yet they base their entire new dogmatic invention on a principle they repudiate, reject and don't employ.


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 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).

Please stop teaching something God doesn't teach.

You mean like....

"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 first celebrated their Xth birthday."
"Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath first wept buckets of tears in repentance."
"Thou canst NOT baptize any until they hath first choseth 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."
"God is impotent to bless those under the magical age of X."
"God CANNOT use baptism to accomplish ANYTHING cuz He just CAN'T."

You know, what you've been teaching?



A blessed Easter season to all...


- Josiah




.

 

[Josiah]

.



1. Infant baptism will never be acceptable to synergists. Thus Anabaptists/Baptists will constantly rant about what babies are unable to do. This new dogma was invented (altogether out of the blue) in the 16th Century by some very radical synergists NOT because of some verse about baptism but because it seemed undeniable to them that babies can't jump through the hoops we must jump through in order to be saved - and from that perspective, they're right..... I wasn't even awake or conscience or breathing when I was baptized, so I have to agree: IF everything is about MY adequately jumping through a bunch of hoops, OBVIOUSLY I could not have done so prior to my baptism. But while the argument focuses on baptism (because that IS the distinctive new invention of Anabaptists/Baptists) that's not really the issue, synergism is.



2. The Norm of Anabaptists will NEVER be accepted by others (or even themselves). They hold that what is normative for dogma is NOT the teachings of the Bible (the honest ones agree there is no stated prohibition) but the EXAMPLES found in the Bible. They are focused on one and only one issue: Where in the Bible is any baby baptized? Aren't all the examples of adults who FIRST came to faith, FIRST repented, FIRST consented and requested baptism? In other words, what the Bible TEACHES is irrelevant (they conceded their prohibitions and limitations are nowhere stated in Scripture) but what is EXAMPLED or ILLUSTRATED by the few cases of baptism that happen to be recorded in the NT. There are several problems with that, which sadly never get discussed because all focus on baptism rather than the rubric used in this argument.

A) It's false. And eventually, Anabaptists/Baptists will admit it. Actually, there are examples where we simply can't know what was the age or faith of the receiver. YES - no one can prove these 'househoods' included children or not-yet-believers but that's not the point. The point is it destroys their premise: that every case is of adults who FIRST repented, FIRST chose Jesus, FIRST consented. The whole apologetic is simply false. Some will admit this - finally admitting they are ASSUMING but then rebuke others for ASSUMING the opposite. Their whole apologetic is thus declared to be wrong.

B) They THEMSELVES reject their own argument. They declare this point that we can only do what is consistently illustrated as done in the NT by posting on the internet, lol. And perhaps during a worship service where 90% of what they are doing is never once (much less consistently) illustrated as done in the NT. Since they so boldly reject their premise, why should others accept it?



3. The radical individualism of the Anabaptist is problematic. In this UBER-individualistic milieu that has infected Christianity since the Enlightenment, the strong embrace of community and family in the Bible has been abandoned by many. Thus the argument, "The faith and actions of parents and the community can have NO relevance! It's Jesus and ME!" In terms of uber, radical individualism, this "rings" with a lot of people - but not with the Bible. I gave just one example: the last of the Ten Plagues of Egypt where the faith and obedience of PARENTS and the community is what literally saved the first-born child; God used the blood and the faith/obeidence of the PARENTS/COMMUNITY to save their child (who evidently didn't believe or do ANYTHING in this regard). I bring up that example - but there are SO many more. But this is a "hard sell" today because of the very, very radical embrace of individualism and the complete abandonment of any sense of community, family, church, chosen people of God. In truth, anti-paedobaptism just "fits" with this "It's Jesus and ME!" mentality SO entrenched in our socieity, as well as the synergism also SO popular today.



See posts 203, 204, 207, 217.....


A blessed Easter season to all...


- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

MennoSota: "You are forcing God by demanding that God extend His unmerited favor when You baptize an infant."


Of course this ^ is untrue.

The only reason we believe that God extends his grace in baptism is because the Bible teaches that. No one is forcing God to do anything by complying with God's word.

 

[MennoSota]

Okay, if someone gives you a gift, did you merit the gift or did the giver just do it without thought of you meriting it? That's why grace is called unmerited favor. And who better to receive such a gift than an infant?

If God chooses to gift adoption to an infant, he will do it without the need for baptism. Baptism is irrelevant to God's choice.
Second, an infant is just as corrupted by sins presence as any other human at any age. God's choosing is not somehow better if He chooses an infant to adopt as opposed to a senior citizen.

And, as I've said, one would have no knowledge of what is supported in scripture if one has not researched it.

Is this an admittance that you have not researched infant baptism in scripture? I have read every passage even vaguely tied to the subject. Infants are never brought up.

Btw, you've still said nothing about my question regarding Timothy's knowledge of scripture; but I think that's because the answer would unravel a bit of the mindset you have about what infants are conscious of. Some pills are hard to swallow.

Are you referring to his family members who guided Timothy toward faith or to Paul who mentored Timothy? Did his knowledge of scripture come by intuition or by studying? My hunch is Timothy studied. Now...what does that red herring have to do with whether infants are conscious of being baptized?
Imagonary, you have no biblical support for your assertions. That is your problem.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Are you referring to his family members who guided Timothy toward faith or to Paul who mentored Timothy? Did his knowledge of scripture come by intuition or by studying? My hunch is Timothy studied. Now...what does that red herring have to do with whether infants are conscious of being baptized?

I'll skip to the end on this one. I'm referring to what Timothy knew. Yes, there were those who taught him, but it does not mean that their teaching was useless because he was an infant. Literal reading of scripture notes that Timothy had come to know the scriptures from infancy. Hence, infants are conscious of many things. What isn't said is anything about anyone "guiding (Timothy) toward faith". Who's grasping now?

Also, basic attachment theory says that at the third trimester a fetus is conscious of it's environment and has already begun to form an attachment bond with its mother. But, I know, such a creature can't possibly be conscious of being baptized.

You're conflating what one is conscious of with what one remembers. I may not remember the first time I swung a bat, but I'm sure I was conscious of it, and it doesn't require that I go back to the batting cages to try and recall it.

 

[MennoSota]

I'll skip to the end on this one. I'm referring to what Timothy knew. Yes, there were those who taught him, but it does not mean that their teaching was useless because he was an infant. Literal reading of scripture notes that Timothy had come to know the scriptures from infancy. Hence, infants are conscious of many things. What isn't said is anything about anyone "guiding (Timothy) toward faith". Who's grasping now?

Also, basic attachment theory says that at the third trimester a fetus is conscious of it's environment and has already begun to form an attachment bond with its mother. But, I know, such a creature can't possibly be conscious of being baptized.

You're conflating what one is conscious of with what one remembers. I may not remember the first time I swung a bat, but I'm sure I was conscious of it, and it doesn't require that I go back to the batting cages to try and recall it.

Infancy is simply referring to Timothy's family training him in the scriptures all his life. There is no mention that Timothy came to faith because of an infant baptism.
Imaginary, you are working hard to project your denominational dogma upon the scriptures. The fact is, you have no scriptural evidence for your assertions.

 

[Josiah]

If God chooses to gift adoption to an infant, he will do it without the need for baptism.

If God chooses to gift adoption to anyone of any age, He will do it. So why bother to teach? Or to minsiter? Or to evangelize or send missionaries? This apologetic (like all your others on this point) is silly and absurd.... And just a diversion.

True: Teaching the Gospel to a person may not result in them getting to heaven, but is that a sound reason to dogmatically forbid and prohibit it? True: God may choose to set one into heaven who never heard the Gospel and who never met a Christian and who never heard about God, but is that a sound reason to dogmatically forbid and prohibit any from hearing about God or meeting a Christian? I read your various apologetics for this... and realize you yourself reject every single one of them.

Second, an infant is just as corrupted by sins presence as any other human at any age. God's choosing is not somehow better if He chooses an infant to adopt as opposed to a senior citizen.

So, how does that prove that we are dogmatically forbidden to permit baptism to the infant but mandated to permit it for the senior citizen?

True: NO ONE is capable of coming to faith - not the infant, not the senior citizen.... not the one hour hold, not the 100 year old.... not the one with an IQ of 50, not the one with an IQ of 250.... so how does that prove that we are dogmatically forbidden to permit baptism to the infant but not to the senior citizen?

Infants are never brought up.

Nor are blondes.... or Americans.....

This SILLY apologetic has already been shown to be the absurd thing Anabaptists/Baptists themselves think it is. Why should non Anabaptists accept an argument they themselves reject and repudiate?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Infancy is simply referring to Timothy's family training him in the scriptures all his life.

If this were so, the context would have said that. It says this:

"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15-16).

"Learned" and "Known" are two separate words in Greek with separate meanings. But, because one does not study or research, one would naturally draw the conclusion you do, assuming all the while that "child" also means a child of the age of reason, just like I did before I did some research.

There is no mention that Timothy came to faith because of an infant baptism.

Understood. I'm using an illustrative tool known as a parallel to draw a similarity. This thread also deals with what babies are conscious of, and I've drawn the parallel to baptism previously.

 

[MennoSota]

If this were so, the context would have said that. It says this:

"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15-16).

"Learned" and "Known" are two separate words in Greek with separate meanings. But, because one does not study or research, one would naturally draw the conclusion you do, assuming all the while that "child" also means a child of the age of reason, just like I did before I did some research.



Understood. I'm using an illustrative tool known as a parallel to draw a similarity. This thread also deals with what babies are conscious of, and I've drawn the parallel to baptism previously.

Thanks for quoting scripture. Note that Timothy learned them from when he was a child. Timothy is like me. I had the scriptures read to me from my earliest recollection. No infant baptism needed. Huh...what do ya know. Infant baptism isn't presented anywhere in that passage. Infant baptism is not needed.
Could it be that your denominational dogma is forcing itself on the text?

 

[Pedrito]

Me in Post #279:

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.

Albion replied (for which I thank him) in Post #280:

They are saved.

He also stated:

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

The other answer he was referring to was from Post #240:

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

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

Because I am a person who strives to arrive at clear and precise comprehension wherever possible, I request Albion’s indulgence a little longer. It relates to understanding the implication of comparing two particular statements. It would seem that one of two conclusions can be reached, and I would like to understand which of the two is true (unless there is a third, or even a fourth that I have not thought of).

The statements are:
“It is not the case that a baptized child is guaranteed of salvation.”
“They are saved.”

The two incompatible conclusions that can be reached are:
“1. A baptised baby is guaranteed salvation until some later point in its life when it (the no-longer-baby) must personally confirm his or her belief and faith.”
“2. A baptised baby is guaranteed salvation (i.e. until death) unless at some later point in its life, it (the no-longer-baby) deliberately rejects such belief and faith.”

I request precise understanding (from whoever believes they can give it – naturally, someone from the Baby Baptising (descriptive term) background) regarding which of the above statements (conclusions) is true.

Thanks in advance once again.

 

[Albion]

Because I am a person who strives to arrive at clear and precise comprehension wherever possible, I request Albion’s indulgence a little longer. It relates to understanding the implication of comparing two particular statements. It would seem that one of two conclusions can be reached, and I would like to understand which of the two is true (unless there is a third, or even a fourth that I have not thought of).

The statements are:
“It is not the case that a baptized child is guaranteed of salvation.”
“They are saved.”

I request precise understanding (from whoever believes they can give it

Well, you have asked for MY explanation, and it is my earlier reply that confused you. So here is the answer--

The first of your two choices is correct.

First, here is the statement I replied to originally (emphasis mine):

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.

I answered that exactly in accordance with the way the question was worded. If the child were to die at six months, he is saved. IF, HOWEVER, he survives to the age of accountability, that would not hold true any longer.

 

[Pedrito]

I thank Albion (I thank you, Albion) once again for his (for your) clarification of specific questions.

He has (You have) addressed the two questions I asked with succinct, precise statements, as requested.

(I am continuing this line of clarification in this thread because it was started here, is already advanced here, is being pursued with politeness, and because the more logical thread “the meaning of Baptism” was closed some time ago.)

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

I now perceive (and I think I am pretty close to the mark) the Anglican understanding regarding the fate of a person, to be:
- If a baptised child tragically loses life before its personal age of understanding, that child has the status of being saved.
- If an unbaptised child tragically loses life before its personal age of understanding, the status of that child is unknown.
- If a baptised child reaches its personal age of understanding, the protection offered by its baptism is then forfeited unless and until that person-of-understanding embraces true belief and faith.
- (I am assuming, but not pursuing the thought here, that) an unbaptised child that reaches its personal age of understanding, is in exactly the same boat as a baptised child when it reaches its personal age of understanding – i.e. it has the status of being potentially lost unless and until it embraces true belief and faith.)

If my (hopefully accurately) paraphrased thoughts err in any way, I am open to correction from Albion (from you, Albion), and (at this stage) from anyone else representing Anglican thoughts on the matter.

Let me express my thanks once again.

 

[Albion]

One thing...

Pedrito, you had not asked me to answer from some particularly “Anglican“ standpoint. What I explained is the standard belief of most Christian teachers and churches, which would include ours.

There are some churches which are exceptions, though.

For example, the Catholic Church, as is well-known, used to teach that unbaptized children went to Limbo, but I offer that only as a footnote because she has recently reversed that position. And as we have also been reading here, those Christians of the Anabaptist tradition reject the idea that baptism does anything towards absolving the recipient from sin, so people of that minority persuasion will have to explain their theory for themselves.






.

 

[MennoSota]

People of the Baptist tradition, which traces itself back to Jesus and his disciples, present the biblical evidence that baptism does not invoke God's action to extend grace. We present the biblical evidence that baptism is a physical expression of what previously happened to an adopted child of God when God chose to redeem them.
We do not take it upon ourselves to presume someone's adoption before they are capable of sharing their adoption to other brothers or sisters in God's family.

 

[Josiah]

People of the Baptist tradition, which traces itself back to Jesus and his disciples

No. It traces back no further than 3 radical synergist Germans who were called "Anabaptists." There is ZERO record of ANY of the distinctive Anabaptist/Baptist teachings on Baptism prior to 1523. And ZERO history of anyone forbidding anyone to be baptized on account of their age.

We present the biblical evidence that baptism is a physical expression of what previously happened to an adopted child of God when God chose to redeem them.

You've presented NOTHING that REMOTELY states that. You can't.



.