Can babies be conscious of their baptism?

[MennoSota]

See post # 68 (and so many others) which you have mostly ignored.






You keep saying that.... yet offering NOTHING but your entirely baseless new personal opinion to support it. You seem obsessed by what you think what God can't do, what God is limited to going... that God is able ONLY to do what He is obligated by Law to do... and that man (and God) is unable to do anything that has not been specifically illustrated in the few examples we see in the Bible... but with NOTHING even offered to support this very restrictive, limiting new view of yours.


We've already seen where Scripture disagrees with you that there are TWO Baptisms - one involving water but no Holy Spirit, the other involving the Holy Spirit but no water. The Bible says there is ONE Baptism - so you either need to show that Baptism never has (and still doesn't) nvolved water or never has (and still doesn't) involve the Holy spirit. And you seem to insist God CANNOT be gracious except to those who are over the age of X and have given public witness to their faith. Yet God SAVES those who are DEAD so obviously you whole premise is wrong..... Scripture says that God causes the rain to fall on the just and unjust alike (and we know it falls on those under the age of X and those who have not publicly given public witness to their faith). God is NOT limited to the legal obligations..... God is NOT rendered impotent by those who are under the age of X and have not publicly given adequate witness of their faith....






Yes, that's your new view... but you've offered NOTHING WHATSOEVER to support it - at all. You opinioned that every example of Baptism in the Bible was to those over the age of X who had first publicly expressed their undying faith in Jesus - but you refuse to show that's true.... or why that even matters if it was.


Again, let's just take 1 Corinthians 1:16. Prove to us all that EVERY INDIVIDUAL MEMBER of this household FIRST attained the magical age of X and FIRST gave adequate public witness of their faith in Christ and that Paul did not baptizing them with water but rather only with the Holy Spirit. Or maybe your premise is false, you have nothing to show that Baptism was not done until the reciever first attained the age of X, first gave public adequate witness to their faith .... and that Paul never used water with any of these but ONLY baptized them with the other baptism, the dry one involving the Holy Spirit (there being two baptisms in contradiction to what Scripture flately states).






I'm not a synergist so that argument is empty and foolish to me.....



- Josiah



.

Verses have been shared about baptism. Many never mention water and the context shows that the baptism being spoken of is not water, but you just brush them away. I can't help you face the scriptures when you are dead set on making the Bible fit your narrative.

 

[MennoSota]

See the following:

Acts 2:38, 22:16;
Rom. 6:1–4;
1 Cor. 6:11, 12:13;
Gal. 3:26–27;
Eph. 5:25-27;
Col. 2:11–12;
Titus 3:5;
1 Pet. 3:18–22).

All of these speak of baptism as efficacious. Study them and see if you can overcome that determination to think of Baptism as nothing other than a gesture.


1 Corinthians 6:11

but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

I read them all. Only in 1 Peter is the word water used. The others are not talking about water baptism. You are forcing the text with your bias.
In 1 Peter, Peter makes an emphatic point to tell you that water does nothing. He's making an analogy. You have butchered the passages. Each one.

 

[Albion]

Well now I just sound like an idiot lol
Good post btw, that 97, if anything I personally feel that my infant baptism helped gear me towards the Lord in my late 20s so it was effective and predestined . Yet so many are baptised as infants and may never 'get it' or may even become be atheist or whatever, so how do you digest that brother Albion? or does it sit well with you?
I imagine grace doing it's part and those that reject are basically accepting the mark of the beast, so to speak but also literally at the same time.

But we know that many who allege that they had a conversion experience as adults and then get baptized later burn out and either leave the faith or stop caring much about it. I have witnessed through the pages of these kinds of discussion pages posters who reported that very same experience in their own lives. In other words, it isn't a shortcoming in baptism that is to blame. The sacrament is a channel of Gods grace; but it isn't a guarantee.

 

[Albion]

I read them all. Only in 1 Peter is the word water used. The others are not talking about water baptism. You are forcing the text with your bias.
In 1 Peter, Peter makes an emphatic point to tell you that water does nothing. He's making an analogy. You have butchered the passages. Each one.

Pretzels have nothing on you when it comes to turning just about anything inside out--verbally, that is.

 

[MennoSota]

Pretzels have nothing on you when it comes to finding a way to turn anything inside out--verbally that is. Were you ever a high school debater?

Albion, you are forcing water and baptismal regeneration onto the text, out of context. That is no pretzel. That is the text showing you to be wrong.

 

[Albion]

Albion, you are forcing water and baptismal regeneration onto the text, out of context. That is no pretzel. .

I'm sorry, but when the Bible speaks of Baptism, it actually is referring to Baptism.

 

[MennoSota]

I'm sorry, but when the Bible speaks of Baptism, it actually is referring to Baptism.

Yes, but not water.
The term means to immerse. The context shows us what we are immersed in. We are immersed into Christ. How? By the work of the Holy Spirit.
Water, like with Noah, is of no use in regenerating us.

 

[Andrew]

But we know that many who allege that they had a conversion experience as adults and then get baptized later burn out and either leave the faith or stop caring much about it. I have witnessed through the pages of these kinds of discussion pages posters who reported that very same experience in their own lives. In other words, it isn't a shortcoming in baptism that is to blame. The sacrament is a channel of Gods grace; but it isn't a guarantee.

Well please exempt me from that, indeed I did start to fall away but yesterday I was so joyful I ran around once but the sermon was awesome and it never fails, i was having doubts away from church thus more towards the world thats looking into the Church which what it will do it will demonize the church but I am now above that. Im happy again and secure in this church, but the infant baptism brought me here and both have brought me to the Lord table to dine with him. He is a very loving and affectionate emotional guy, like me. Yes I did not shut away the church tho I was so so close to do so, and God told me to stop it, this is where I brought you. I love it. So yeah I needed it

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[atpollard]

How do Lutherans fit that bill, considering that they are as concerned to have their newborns baptized as Catholics are??

That's what I said. So are Presbyterians, and Catholics and Anglicans and all other denominations that practice 'infant baptism' (although infant baptism is a misnomer, because they do not just baptize 'infants'; 'family baptism' is a better description because you all believe in baptizing the entire family of the saved person.)

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

Those who choose to baptize infants real "For the promise is for you and your children" as 'the promise of baptism is for you and your children' and view it as something to be claimed ASAP. In the WCF and the Presbyterian Church this is explained as Acts 2 initiating a New Covenant in the same manner that Genesis (Abraham) initiated an Old Covenant. In the Old Covenant between God and His people, God chose Circumcision as the sign of being one of the covenant people. In the New Covenant, God has chosen baptism as the sign of the covenant. Thus baptizing a baby is not about recognizing that that baby has repented and believed (we have no way to know one way or another what a baby believes), but rather that the baby has entered into the Covenant relationship with God. The baby is part of the visible Church.

Baptists and others who advocate a 'believers baptism' read "For the promise is for you and your children" as 'God will offer your children the same chance at salvation that he has offered you. Calvinists take that to mean that God will choose those children that He will choose. Arminians believe that the child will grow up to choose on his own. The critical point is that those who practice 'believers baptism' believe that the New Covenant Church is made only of those who have believed and repented and been baptized (although many would argue that it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that saves and the water baptism is done as an act of obedience ... part of sanctification, not justification.)

My point was that the verse 1 Corinthians 7:14 [For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.] can be interpreted in claiming "your children ... are holy (set apart)" as supporting the family Covenant view held by all those who baptize babies. [That is why you baptize babies ... because you believe that the entire family, including babies, is part of the New Covenant Church].

 

[Albion]

Well please exempt me from that, indeed I did start to fall away but yesterday I was so joyful I ran around once but the sermon was awesome and it never fails, i was having doubts away from church thus more towards the world thats looking into the Church which what it will do it will demonize the church but I am now above that.

Trust me...I did not have your experience in mind when I was typing that. But we both know that it can happen and does happen with some people.

Im happy again and secure in this church, but the infant baptism brought me here and both have brought me to the Lord table to dine with him. He is a very loving and affectionate emotional guy, like me. Yes I did not shut away the church tho I was so so close to do so, and God told me to stop it, this is where I brought you. I love it. So yeah I needed it

 

[Andrew]

Trust me...I did not have your experience in mind when I was typing that. But we both know that it can happen and does happen with some people.

I could see where it would have got me, arm and arm with the devil by the means of his world but yay not mine you cannot serve two masters, you will hate one and love the other

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

That's what I said. So are Presbyterians, and Catholics and Anglicans and all other denominations that practice 'infant baptism' (although infant baptism is a misnomer, because they do not just baptize 'infants'; 'family baptism' is a better description because you all believe in baptizing the entire family of the saved person.)

I get the point about some Presbyterians, but none of the other denominations mentioned have any such 'family covenant' thinking when it comes to baptism.

I hope that gets us back on course.

 

[Lamb]

M
BUT this thread is about if the infant knows that they are being baptised, if so they must know what for... was the baby reading the bible in the womb?

Usually babies will have heard the word by the parents attending church services or the mother reading out loud while pregnant or even singing hymns since Lutheran hymns are mostly scripture. So yes, a baby could have faith in the womb and I gave the example of John the Baptist already. Infants can have faith because Jesus said so (the Greek word is infant) and I believed I quoted that verse either here or in another one. It's been so long I can't remember.

 

[Lamb]

I'm sorry, but when the Bible speaks of Baptism, it actually is referring to Baptism.

And that's how it was understood up until the 1500s when a lot of changes were made because mankind went astray.

 

[Josiah]

I was baptized within one minute of my birth (by C-Section). I was birthed 6 weeks early because of a heart situation that needed surgery, so I was born in the OR equipped with two tables - one for Mom to birth me and the other for my surgery that had to IMMEDIATELY be done. I was baptized in the brief time from when I was removed to when the surgery began. I was not conscience at the time and not breathing naturally. The baptism was done because my parents were obedient to the Great Commission, because my parents believed God is powerful enough to perform His miracle of regeneration, and because they had medical reason to believe this might be their only opportunity. I was not dunked in a tank.... and I was not baptized with dry sand but with water since my parents believe the Bible indicates water. I was baptized with an eye dropper.

I believe God was not rendered impotent by this situation and that God could work His grace, mercy, will and blessing - even in an OR, even with one not yet conscience or breathing naturally, even with an eye dropper rather than a big dunk tub. My God is big enough to handle that. But I guess one can conclude He's not and that all that was a waste of some drops of water.... okay..... but I fail to see the words of the Bible declaring God is rendered impotent by my situation, that God MUST have the receiver breathing and conscience or God is rendered impotent, I can't even find the verse that says, "Thou canst NOT use water in Baptism because the word "baptism" means dry and void of water." And I can't find the verse that says, "Thou canst NOT use less than 16.4 gallons of water in baptism for less than that rendereth God impotent." MAYBE God did NOTHING in that OR..... but I can't find any verse that STATES He could not have or that my priest was specifically forbidden to do what he did.


- Josiah

 

[MennoSota]

I was baptized within one minute of my birth (by C-Section). I was birthed 6 weeks early because of a heart situation that needed surgery, so I was born in the OR equipped with two tables - one for Mom to birth me and the other for my surgery that had to IMMEDIATELY be done. I was baptized in the brief time from when I was removed to when the surgery began. I was not conscience at the time and not breathing naturally. The baptism was done because my parents were obedient to the Great Commission, because my parents believed God is powerful enough to perform His miracle of regeneration, and because they had medical reason to believe this might be their only opportunity. I was not dunked in a tank.... and I was not baptized with dry sand but with water since my parents believe the Bible indicates water. I was baptized with an eye dropper.

I believe God was not rendered impotent by this situation and that God could work His grace, mercy, will and blessing - even in an OR, even with one not yet conscience or breathing naturally, even with an eye dropper rather than a big dunk tub. My God is big enough to handle that. But I guess one can conclude He's not and that all that was a waste of some drops of water.... okay..... but I fail to see the words of the Bible declaring God is rendered impotent by my situation, that God MUST have the receiver breathing and conscience or God is rendered impotent, I can't even find the verse that says, "Thou canst NOT use water in Baptism because the word "baptism" means dry and void of water." And I can't find the verse that says, "Thou canst NOT use less than 16.4 gallons of water in baptism for less than that rendereth God impotent." MAYBE God did NOTHING in that OR..... but I can't find any verse that STATES He could not have or that my priest was specifically forbidden to do what he did.


- Josiah

Let's set this straight: Your parents had NOTHING to do with your salvation. God didn't need them to quickly sprinkle you with a magic water potion. If you are adopted and redeemed it is solely by God's providential ordinance and nothing else. Any other additions you wish to claim is merely a claim of works for salvation and thus eliminates grace as the means of your salvation.

 

[Lamb]

Let's set this straight: Your parents had NOTHING to do with your salvation. God didn't need them to quickly sprinkle you with a magic water potion. If you are adopted and redeemed it is solely by God's providential ordinance and nothing else. Any other additions you wish to claim is merely a claim of works for salvation and thus eliminates grace as the means of your salvation.

Exactly right that his parents had NOTHING to do with his salvation! God is the one who baptizes "be baptized" is the phrase. He gives the promises by His Word through the waters. Does a baby need to be aware that he's receiving those promises in order for them to be effective? No.

Baptism and teaching go hand in hand as Jesus states to his disciples. If someone is taught first he should be encouraged to be baptized. If someone is baptized he should not starve from lack of being taught and parents have a duty they swear to to continue teaching their children about the faith.

Who is the one working in the parents to do His will but the Holy Spirit guiding those parents to baptize their children! Suffer, little children and forbid them not to come to me.

 

[MennoSota]

Exactly right that his parents had NOTHING to do with his salvation! God is the one who baptizes "be baptized" is the phrase. He gives the promises by His Word through the waters. Does a baby need to be aware that he's receiving those promises in order for them to be effective? No.

Baptism and teaching go hand in hand as Jesus states to his disciples. If someone is taught first he should be encouraged to be baptized. If someone is baptized he should not starve from lack of being taught and parents have a duty they swear to to continue teaching their children about the faith.

Who is the one working in the parents to do His will but the Holy Spirit guiding those parents to baptize their children! Suffer, little children and forbid them not to come to me.

You are projecting an idea with no biblical support for that idea. It is a philosophy created by your denomination. You are misusing scripture and forcing your concept upon the word "baptism."
I meet Lutherans and Catholics everyday who have faith in their baptism and confirmation classes, but are dead in their trespasses and sins. Their "actions" are ineffectual because God has never chosen them or even called them to adoption. They will die, ignorant in their sins, trusting in their churches false teaching and dogma. It is a great shame and no one in these denominations seems to care.

 

[Lamb]

You are projecting an idea with no biblical support for that idea. It is a philosophy created by your denomination. You are misusing scripture and forcing your concept upon the word "baptism."
I meet Lutherans and Catholics everyday who have faith in their baptism and confirmation classes, but are dead in their trespasses and sins. Their "actions" are ineffectual because God has never chosen them or even called them to adoption. They will die, ignorant in their sins, trusting in their churches false teaching and dogma. It is a great shame and no one in these denominations seems to care.

Actually the idea has been carried forth since the time of the disciples. It's your denomination that felt it necessary to change. Consider that.

 

[Albion]

I meet Lutherans and Catholics everyday who have faith in their baptism and confirmation classes, but are dead in their trespasses and sins. .

You've lost the argument the minute you turn from the theology we have been discussing--and the Bible's testimony--and start in with "but some church members aren't good examples, so the belief itself must not be correct."