Can babies be conscious of their baptism?

[ImaginaryDay2]

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.

Nor did God need you to dunk yourself (however you were dunked) to extend grace to you. If being "adopted and redeemed is solely by God's providential ordinance and nothing else", then why baptize at all? Obedience? A show for the church of your "seriousness"? What? How long can it realistically be put off?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

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.

You know this, do you? That's neat.

 

[Josiah]

Your parents had NOTHING to do with your salvation.

No one said they did. We agree that Jesus is the (one, only, all-sufficient) Savior.

Where we seem to disagree is that I don't think God is rendered impotent by water or by obedience or by age (or to the point of the thread, whether one is conscience or not). God could raise Lazarus to life so I don't see how God is too weak to raise a baby to life. God can use a spit ball to perform a miracle, I don't see how God is rendered impotent by water.

Of course, your point ALSO means that parents bringing you to Sunday School and church, parents teaching you to pray, parents singing Christian songs to you, parents teaching you the Gospel - NONE of that had ANYTHING to do with you coming to faith. You realize your point includes all that, too.

God didn't need them to quickly sprinkle you with a magic water potion

Well, God brought John the Baptist to faith before he was even born, so God doesn't need anyone to attain the age of X or the IQ of X or the presentation of the Word either. But where I disagree with you is just because God CAN give faith purely by fiat with NO MEANS WHATSOEVER and no action by anyone whatsoever, does NOT mean that ergo God is rendered impotent if there is any means or any action involved.

If you are adopted and redeemed it is solely by God's providential ordinance and nothing else

So, you are quite upset with the whole Great Commission..... I see.

Are you angry at your parents, Sunday School teachers, pastors too? Are you angry because they shared God's love with you, shared the Gospel with you, even took you to Sunday School and church because then human action was involved, means were involved - thus rendered God impotent? How, pray tell, did God manage to give you faith inspite of all those sinful, terrible, bad things your parents and others DID, because they applies MEANS to you - and didn't just be totally quiet and still and raise you in a total vacuum so that God could save you without being made impotent?

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.

I think you must be very mad at your parents, Sunday School teachers, pastors.... Are you equally mad at evangelists and missionaries? Do you stand at the door to your church and Sunday School to demand that all enter are already Christians lest God be rendered impotent to save because the Means of Grace will be fully employed here, there's human action here?


- Josiah

 

[Albion]

It is not limited to only water, which is what Josiah is attempting to do.

So Coca-Cola would do just as well, like brats and beer for Holy Communion?? Or were both of those events that Christ instituted merely examples of something abstract, meaning that doing nothing at all would accomplish the same end? I have read both approaches to the matter in your posts.

 

[MennoSota]

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.

No it hasn't. The disciples never taught what you are presenting. The Bible does not teach what you are presenting. You are projecting.

 

[MennoSota]

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."

Ha! The Bible shows you are wrong. Your members confirm that it is wrong.

 

[MennoSota]

Nor did God need you to dunk yourself (however you were dunked) to extend grace to you. If being "adopted and redeemed is solely by God's providential ordinance and nothing else", then why baptize at all? Obedience? A show for the church of your "seriousness"? What? How long can it realistically be put off?

No, I was not "dunked" to extend grace to me.
God already extended grace. My adoption was secured by God alone. Water baptism was merely an act of obedience to share with the community that God had already redeemed me.
You equate grace with baptism. That isn't grace. That is you performing a work and unfortunately calling it grace.

 

[MennoSota]

You know this, do you? That's neat.

Yes. Shall we go over to Luther Seminary where you can meet them?

 

[MennoSota]

No one said they did. We agree that Jesus is the (one, only, all-sufficient) Savior.

Where we seem to disagree is that I don't think God is rendered impotent by water or by obedience or by age (or to the point of the thread, whether one is conscience or not). God could raise Lazarus to life so I don't see how God is too weak to raise a baby to life. God can use a spit ball to perform a miracle, I don't see how God is rendered impotent by water.

Of course, your point ALSO means that parents bringing you to Sunday School and church, parents teaching you to pray, parents singing Christian songs to you, parents teaching you the Gospel - NONE of that had ANYTHING to do with you coming to faith. You realize your point includes all that, too.






Well, God brought John the Baptist to faith before he was even born, so God doesn't need anyone to attain the age of X or the IQ of X or the presentation of the Word either. But where I disagree with you is just because God CAN give faith purely by fiat with NO MEANS WHATSOEVER and no action by anyone whatsoever, does NOT mean that ergo God is rendered impotent if there is any means or any action involved.






So, you are quite upset with the whole Great Commission..... I see.

Are you angry at your parents, Sunday School teachers, pastors too? Are you angry because they shared God's love with you, shared the Gospel with you, even took you to Sunday School and church because then human action was involved, means were involved - thus rendered God impotent? How, pray tell, did God manage to give you faith inspite of all those sinful, terrible, bad things your parents and others DID, because they applies MEANS to you - and didn't just be totally quiet and still and raise you in a total vacuum so that God could save you without being made impotent?





I think you must be very mad at your parents, Sunday School teachers, pastors.... Are you equally mad at evangelists and missionaries? Do you stand at the door to your church and Sunday School to demand that all enter are already Christians lest God be rendered impotent to save because the Means of Grace will be fully employed here, there's human action here?


- Josiah

Josiah. Parents can dedicate themselves to raising their children in the ways of God without ever sprinkling water on them in a church ceremony. If you want to sprinkle the kid as statement to the church that you, the parent, are going to strive to teach your children about God then that's fine. Just don't preach that your sprinkling is imparting God's grace on the kid because...it's not. Your actions are utterly meaningless and ineffectual in imparting grace.
Please stop demanding that God must impart grace via infant baptism. He is under no such obligation.

 

[MennoSota]

So Coca-Cola would do just as well, like brats and beer for Holy Communion?? Or were both of those events that Christ instituted merely examples of something abstract, meaning that doing nothing at all would accomplish the same end? I have read both approaches to the matter in your posts.

What do they "accomplish?"
Do you teach that the ceremony of baptism saves a person from their sins?
Baptism is a choice of obedience that comes after God has extended grace, not before and certainly not as a magical means of forcing God to extend grace.

 

[Albion]

What do they "accomplish?"

As has been said before, they are channels of Grace at the least. Even if I take the Baptistic POV about them being mere ordinances, they would still be demonstrations of our faith, acts of obedience to the Lord, and (in the case of the Lord's Supper) a remembrance ceremony that was commanded of us by Christ himself.

Do you teach that the ceremony of baptism saves a person from their sins?

:banghead:
I think I'll just refer you to the previous nine or so times I've explained that.

 

[Albion]

Ha! The Bible shows you are wrong. Your members confirm that it is wrong.

Sorry, but footstamping and pouting don't count for anything here. When you don't have an answer (like this time), just say so. Life will go on.

 

[Josiah]

No one said they did. We agree that Jesus is the (one, only, all-sufficient) Savior.

Where we seem to disagree is that I don't think God is rendered impotent by water or by obedience or by age (or to the point of the thread, whether one is conscience or not). God could raise Lazarus to life so I don't see how God is too weak to raise a baby to life. God can use a spit ball to perform a miracle, I don't see how God is rendered impotent by water.

Of course, your point ALSO means that parents bringing you to Sunday School and church, parents teaching you to pray, parents singing Christian songs to you, parents teaching you the Gospel - NONE of that had ANYTHING to do with you coming to faith. You realize your point includes all that, too.






Well, God brought John the Baptist to faith before he was even born, so God doesn't need anyone to attain the age of X or the IQ of X or the presentation of the Word either. But where I disagree with you is just because God CAN give faith purely by fiat with NO MEANS WHATSOEVER and no action by anyone whatsoever, does NOT mean that ergo God is rendered impotent if there is any means or any action involved.






So, you are quite upset with the whole Great Commission..... I see.

Are you angry at your parents, Sunday School teachers, pastors too? Are you angry because they shared God's love with you, shared the Gospel with you, even took you to Sunday School and church because then human action was involved, means were involved - thus rendered God impotent? How, pray tell, did God manage to give you faith inspite of all those sinful, terrible, bad things your parents and others DID, because they applies MEANS to you - and didn't just be totally quiet and still and raise you in a total vacuum so that God could save you without being made impotent?





I think you must be very mad at your parents, Sunday School teachers, pastors.... Are you equally mad at evangelists and missionaries? Do you stand at the door to your church and Sunday School to demand that all enter are already Christians lest God be rendered impotent to save because the Means of Grace will be fully employed here, there's human action here?


.

Parents can dedicate themselves to raising their children in the ways of God without ever sprinkling water on them

... and there would STILL be human activity involved - and you'd be all angry and mad and going on and on about "Parents can't save their children! God is rendered impotent if any means or activity is involved!"


Yes, God CAN save by pure fiat - we've agreed on that - we have the biblical example of John the Baptist who believed before he was born. Yuppers. It's not my side that's insisting on what God cannot do, what renders God impotent. But here's where I find your logic terrible: Just because God CAN bless without means or human activity on one unconsicence (and we have one example of that) does NOT meant that ERGO He is impotent to bless in any other way, using means and human activities.....

Read the post you quoted.


.

 

[MennoSota]

As has been said before, they are channels of Grace at the least. Even if I take the Baptistic POV about them being mere ordinances, they would still be demonstrations of our faith, acts of obedience to the Lord, and (in the case of the Lord's Supper) a remembrance ceremony that was commanded of us by Christ himself.

:banghead:
I think I'll just refer you to the previous nine or so times I've explained that.

Read what you just wrote. Everything you share takes place...after...God has extended his gracious favor of salvation. Not once are they before God's saving grace is given.
There is nothing magical or mystical taking place in baptism or communion. There is no saving grace effectually happening in these ceremonies. That is a projection taught by your church and not by God.

 

[Albion]

Read what you just wrote. Everything you share takes place...after...God has extended his gracious favor of salvation. Not once are they before God's saving grace is given.

You asked what the sacraments accomplish. BY DEFINITION, the question is asking what observing or receiving them does for us, not what we may think about them in advance of that.

There is nothing magical or mystical taking place in baptism or communion.

No one said that there is--unless you are accusing God of being a magician and all that he does for us is magic. The theological theory that Baptism and the Lord's Suipper are nothing but gestures is of course contrary to the Bible's teaching, so that notion is just a nonstarter.

 

[MennoSota]

... and there would STILL be human activity involved - and you'd be all angry and mad and going on and on about "Parents can't save their children! God is rendered impotent if any means or activity is involved!"


Yes, God CAN save by pure fiat - we've agreed on that - we have the biblical example of John the Baptist who believed before he was born. Yuppers. It's not my side that's insisting on what God cannot do, what renders God impotent. But here's where I find your logic terrible: Just because God CAN bless without means or human activity on one unconsicence (and we have one example of that) does NOT meant that ERGO He is impotent to bless in any other way, using means and human activities.....

Read the post you quoted.


.

Humans respond to God's saving grace once it is extended by God. They do not invoke God into extending His grace.
God does save by pure fiat in every case. Meaning that people can share the gospel until they are blue in the face and not one person will ever respond to the message. God may choose to save while the gospel happens to be spoken. God may choose to save while a person is in a dark cave. God gets to make the choice.
What we as Christians know is that God has commissioned us to go. Into all the world. Preaching the gospel. Baptizing newly adopted brothers and sisters. Teaching the newbies about God.
We could do that for all our lives and God could refuse to extend grace to all the people who hear what we have to say. Or, he could choose to extend grace. God gets to make that decision. We have no say in the matter.

 

[MennoSota]

You asked what the sacraments accomplish. BY DEFINITION, the question is asking what observing or receiving them does for us, not what we may think about them in advance of that.


No one said that there is--unless you are accusing God of being a magician and all that he does for us is magic. The theological theory that Baptism and the Lord's Suipper are nothing but gestures is of course contrary to the Bible's teaching, so that notion is just a nonstarter.

The theological theory that Baptism and the Lord's Supper extend regenerational grace is of course contrary to the Bible's teaching so that notion is just a nonstarter.

 

[Albion]

The theological theory that Baptism and the Lord's Supper extend regenerational grace is of course contrary to the Bible's teaching so that notion is just a nonstarter.

And now you are unable to word your own reply by yourself? Looks like you're done with this topic.

 

[Josiah]

The theological theory that Baptism and the Lord's Supper extend regenerational grace is of course contrary to the Bible's teaching so that notion is just a nonstarter.

Of course, there is the verse, "Baptism now saves you." I know how Anabaptists spin that (180 degrees) but even they admit there is no verse, "Baptism is SO stressed in Scripture but it's a waste of time and water and can't do a thing; it's part of the Great Commission - equal to teaching - but it's worthless."

Of course, Jesus said, "do this ... FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS." Matthew 26:28. Of course, there are those who say, "nope." The same ones who insist Jesus SO stressed "is" but He didn't mean that either. Even those who hate Communion will admit, there is no verse that says "This is ONLY a rememberance and nothing more..... this SYMBOLIZES His Body and Blood because Jesus is in heaven and because He is God He CANNOT be here.... this is NOT for the forgiveness of your sins."


BUT.... if you truly believed God put SO much emphasis on Baptism and Communion because they are foolish wastes of time that accomplish and convey NOTHING WHATSOEVER... then you wouldn't be all hot and bothered and angry about people doing them, not SO, SO fixatated on withholding them - you'd just be saying (as some less-than-uber Calvinists do) they are HIGHLY STRESSED Biblical obligations - that are entirely void of any purpose or meaning or blessings.


See 1 Corinthians 11:29-30. If Communion is NOTHING, worthless, powerless, just a religious rite that conveys and does nothing.... why does the Bible say some receive judgement... some are weak and sick and die? Tell me... why would a Calvinist participate in it at all? The only words of Jesus they accept are "take... eat... drink.... remembrance." Yet Paul seems to give it some power - including to make one weak, sick an dead. Why would something meaningless, worthless, useless, unable to be used by God, unable to accomplish anything, just a meaningless religious rite... why participate if it (this impotent mere rite) can make you weak, sick, dead (is that referring to spiritually or physically)? Oh, I know..... those words are disbelieved too. God CANNOT do that either.


But this thread isn't about the Eucharist.... or what percentage of what Jesus and Paul so boldly stated because God cannot to that.



- Josiah

 

[MennoSota]

And now you are unable to word your own reply by yourself? Looks like you're done with this topic.

LOL, you are working hard to find an excuse for your denominations false teaching.