Can babies be conscious of their baptism?

[Josiah]

Well, of course I've NEVER said anything of the sort (as we all know) and you didn't get that from my post.... But I do believe that God CAN use tools to convey and grant things. There's one difference, I believe God can.... you believe God just can't do that, God is only able to work in absolute vacuums where NOTHING and NO ONE does anything and NOTHING is used by God. I don't see such rendered God impotent.... just as I don't see those under the age of X or the IQ of X rendering Him impotent... or even (to the point of this thread) someone being unconscience rendering God impotent. Jesus (point to the cup) says "THIS IS for the forgiveness of sins." I think He is able to grant forgiveness, using that tool (Of course, He can NOT using that tool, too - but then I'm not the one fixated on what God can't do). Some have a small God... they look at what the Bible verbatim says (such as in 1 Corinthians 11:23-30 and Matthew 26:28 and just tell God, "You can't do that, so this must mean the opposite of what You said."


.

The argument you are making is that God effectually saves infants when they are baptized

1. Quote me; I have no idea what statement of mine you are referring to.

2. Then all your statements about how I believe the RITE saves rather than Jesus, that the PARENTS are the effectual aspect - well, you are admitting I never said that, you just keep accusing me of that.

3. You normally are very interested in what Scripture says, but on the topic of Baptism, you passionately evade Scripture and any mention of it. Yes, there is the statement in Scripture "Baptism now saves you" (yeah, I know how Anabaptists for the past 500 years have twisted that 180 degrees the opposite of what it says) but no verse that says, "Baptism is SO stressed and is half of the Great Commission equal to teaching but it is a total waste of time and water because it does absolutely nothing." You keep going on and on about what God cannot do, that God can't do anything He's not obligated to do, etc. And you've tried to say we are bound NOT by the words of Scripture but the Tradition of the early church insisting that ALL baptisms were done for folks over the age of X who had already come to faith, but when I give you a verse about someone receiving Baptism and ask you to prove your point.... well..... like I said, you don't want to talk Scripture HERE. And I quoted Scripture where Jesus referring to the Sacrament says "this is for the forgiveness of sins" but you ignore it insisting that Jesus instituted this, the Sacrament SO important in Scripture and in the church, because it does nothing and accomplishes nothing because God cannot use it as a vehicle of forgiveness.

The argument you are making is that God effectually saves a person when they partake of the communion elements

Of course, I;ve never in my life said anything remotely like that. Actually, Communion is given to believers so no it never has an opportunity to save. It's not a part of the Great Commission as is baptizing and teaching.


The statement is what JESUS said. It was not me but Jesus who said "for the forgiveness of your sins." And the Greek makes it clear the object is the Cup. Yeah..... Anabaptists will see the verse "Baptism now saves you" and twist it absolutely inside out and upside down, twist it 180 degrees, until the words are changed to "Baptism is a waste of time and water." Some hyper-Calvinists will add, "God CANNOT use baptism!" And yeah, Anabaptists will see where Jesus says, "For the forgiveness of sins" and twist that absolutely inside out and upside down, twist it 180 degrees, until the words are changed to "this is for nothing at all." Some hyper-Calvinists might add, "God CANNOT use Communion!" And I quoted where Paul says that receiving Communion wrongly can result in people (physically or spiritually) becomeing weak, sick even dying.... yet Anabaptists will twist that upside down, twist it 180 degrees until it says, "Communion won't do anything at all - not bad, not good, not anything." Some hyper-Calvinists might add, "Because God CANNOT use this for anything."



- Josiah

 

[MennoSota]

1. Quote me; I have no idea what statement of mine you are referring to.

2. Then all your statements about how I believe the RITE saves rather than Jesus, that the PARENTS are the effectual aspect - well, you are admitting I never said that, you just keep accusing me of that.

3. You normally are very interested in what Scripture says, but on the topic of Baptism, you passionately evade Scripture and any mention of it. Yes, there is the statement in Scripture "Baptism now saves you" (yeah, I know how Anabaptists for the past 500 years have twisted that 180 degrees the opposite of what it says) but no verse that says, "Baptism is SO stressed and is half of the Great Commission equal to teaching but it is a total waste of time and water because it does absolutely nothing." You keep going on and on about what God cannot do, that God can't do anything He's not obligated to do, etc. And you've tried to say we are bound NOT by the words of Scripture but the Tradition of the early church insisting that ALL baptisms were done for folks over the age of X who had already come to faith, but when I give you a verse about someone receiving Baptism and ask you to prove your point.... well..... like I said, you don't want to talk Scripture HERE. And I quoted Scripture where Jesus referring to the Sacrament says "this is for the forgiveness of sins" but you ignore it insisting that Jesus instituted this, the Sacrament SO important in Scripture and in the church, because it does nothing and accomplishes nothing because God cannot use it as a vehicle of forgiveness.





Of course, I;ve never in my life said anything remotely like that. Actually, Communion is given to believers so no it never has an opportunity to save. It's not a part of the Great Commission as is baptizing and teaching.


The statement is what JESUS said. It was not me but Jesus who said "for the forgiveness of your sins." And the Greek makes it clear the object is the Cup. Yeah..... Anabaptists will see the verse "Baptism now saves you" and twist it absolutely inside out and upside down, twist it 180 degrees, until the words are changed to "Baptism is a waste of time and water." Some hyper-Calvinists will add, "God CANNOT use baptism!" And yeah, Anabaptists will see where Jesus says, "For the forgiveness of sins" and twist that absolutely inside out and upside down, twist it 180 degrees, until the words are changed to "this is for nothing at all." Some hyper-Calvinists might add, "God CANNOT use Communion!" And I quoted where Paul says that receiving Communion wrongly can result in people (physically or spiritually) becomeing weak, sick even dying.... yet Anabaptists will twist that upside down, twist it 180 degrees until it says, "Communion won't do anything at all - not bad, not good, not anything." Some hyper-Calvinists might add, "Because God CANNOT use this for anything."



- Josiah

Choose every passage where the word baptism is found and we can address each passage to see if baptismal regeneration is actually taught in scripture or if you are projecting and misapplying the scripture to fit your denominational narrative.

 

[Josiah]

Is faith given to an infant because a parent has them sprinkled by a priest or clergy?

.

I'm not sure Scripture answers that - one way OR the other. Christians do (universally since 63 AD until some German guys in the 16th Century found a verse that says, "Those under an age we refuse to tell you can't have faith because they lack the education, intelligence and will to rip it away from God and give it to themselves."

BUT.... I do think of that last of the plagues of Egypt... were parents sacrificied a lamb for their children.... put some of the blood on the doorpost of their homes for their children.... and the angel of death passed over the homes where the parents did that.... saving their child. Hum.... The faith and obedience of the parents resulted in their child being saved. Hum.... But I know, actually the Bible left out that this only worked for children over the age of X (God just forgot to put that part in the Bible) all the children (Egyptian and otherwise) were exempt from all this if they were under the age of X (God forgot to put that part into the Bible, too.... it's really upsetting when God forgets big stuff like that).

But I agree: There is no verse that says, "Thou shalt baptize those under the age of X!" And there's no verse that says, "Thou canst NOT baptize those under the age of X." In fact there's no verse in the Bible about the age of X at all. Those German Anabaptist dudes just made up that part, too.


Yeah.... I think it's at least THEORETICALLY possible that when I get to heaven, God MAY say to me, "Hey, why did you baptize your son, didn't you know that's a complete waste of time and good water and I can't image why in heaven I told everyone to do that and made such a big deal over it! Oh well, didn't hurt anything and it made for a lot of cute pictures." But then I find it at least THEORETICALLY possible that when you get to heaven, God MAY say to you, "Why did you REFUSE to do what I commanded, what I made so central to the Great Commandment, and deprived my child from blessings I wanted to give? Who gave you the authority to put all those prohibitions on my will and heart, how dare you!" But that's theoretical. I may waste some water (no harm done).... you may deprive of blessings and thrunt God's will and heart for the child you love. Oh well. You're right. BOTH the verse "Include children" and "Forbid children" are missing. If I'm wrong, the baby got an extra bath.... if you are wrong....


Yeah, there is the silent assumption that God MEANT to say ".... oh, but do not get the CRAZY idea that I'm including children in the baptizing part just because I'm including them in the teaching part and included them in the circumcision part and included them in pretty much everything else." God MEANT to say that but, well......He was busy. But yes, there is the silent assumption that God actually would have said, "go ahead and teach and stuff but DO NOT baptize Americans or folks with blue eyes or folks who speak English or folks born in Sweden or those with Downs' Syndrome!" He MEANT to put in those prohibitions but was, well, He had a LOT on His plate! Yes, there is a silent assumption that He would have said if Swedes or Blondes were excluded. But you have also a silent assumption - He meant to put IN prohibtions but forgot. And no one on the planet realized that until this German guy discovered that in 1523 (maybe God told him about his oopsie; we could make that silent assumption).


Thank you.


I'm been watching too many Lutheran Satire videos lately....


- Josiah

 

[NewCreation435]

It was my understanding that Jesus sat a child down in the midst of his audience and said something along the lines of "unless you be as a little child you can not see the kingdom of God" which I assume he is saying a child is innocent and pure.


Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

If you think a child is innocent and pure you must not spend much time with children then. The only words they don't need to be taught is "no" and "mine". Children are selfish from the very beginning.

 

[Andrew]

If you think a child is innocent and pure you must not spend much time with children then. The only words they don't need to be taught is "no" and "mine". Children are selfish from the very beginning.

lol that may be so but compared to adults they are a bit more innocent. Adults these days are just as whiney and demanding and "no" and "mine" are still very much in their vocabulary
kids get on less of my nerves to be honest but no I don't have kids myself

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[NewCreation435]

lol that may be so but compared to adults they are a bit more innocent. Adults these days are just as whiney and demanding and "no" and "mine" are still very much in their vocabulary
kids get on less of my nerves to be honest but no I don't have kids myself

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

I work with kids everyday and some of them are already compulsive little liars. Sorry, but true

 

[atpollard]

Little Children are helpless and powerless. They are utterly dependent on their parents to meet their needs ... that is how everyone must come to God.

 

[Josiah]

Little Children are helpless and powerless. They are utterly dependent on their parents to meet their needs ... that is how everyone must come to God.

Thus the synergist assumption of those who deny that God saves - NO ONE contributes anything to salvation and regeneration, not John the Baptist still in his mothers' womb, not the 45 year old with an IQ of 210 and 5 Ph.D.'s and 2 seminary degrees who has memorized every word of the Bible. Both are equally helpless and powerless.... both are equally spiritually DEAD and can contribute NOTHING. Thus the problem for the Calvinist Anabaptist.

 

[atpollard]

Thus the synergist assumption of those who deny that God saves - NO ONE contributes anything to salvation and regeneration, not John the Baptist still in his mothers' womb, not the 45 year old with an IQ of 210 and 5 Ph.D.'s and 2 seminary degrees who has memorized every word of the Bible. Both are equally helpless and powerless.... both are equally spiritually DEAD and can contribute NOTHING. Thus the problem for the Calvinist Anabaptist.

There are no Calvinist Anabaptists ... it is a self-contradictory term you made up. There are Calvinist Credobaptist (commonly called Particular Baptists or Reformed Baptists), that disagree with you on the purpose and meaning of baptism. So there is no “Thus the synergistic assumption” as you claim, for us.

 

[Josiah]

There are no Calvinist Anabaptists ... it is a self-contradictory term you made up. There are Calvinist Credobaptist (commonly called Particular Baptists or Reformed Baptists), that disagree with you on the purpose and meaning of baptism. So there is no “Thus the synergistic assumption” as you claim, for us.

Well, now the "ana" part of the name has been dropped, but it's the same dogma on baptism...

I think your post 167 documents the contradiction between the Reformed theology on justification and the Baptist dogma on baptism. The theological reason for why (Ana)baptists reject baptizing those under the age of X is the reason you gave in post 167. Yes, the theological reason is the uber-synergism of the (Ana)baptist. The reason why (Ana)baptist dogmatically invented Anti-Paedobaptism and the Age of Accountability is purely because of the doctrine you proclaimed in post 167 - it was simply a necessary invention of its uber-synergism for the reason you so well stated.



- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

There are no Calvinist Anabaptists ... it is a self-contradictory term you made up. There are Calvinist Credobaptist (commonly called Particular Baptists or Reformed Baptists), that disagree with you on the purpose and meaning of baptism. So there is no “Thus the synergistic assumption” as you claim, for us.

Well, now the "ana" part of the name has been dropped, but it's the same dogma on baptism...

I think your post 167 documents the contradiction between the Reformed theology on justification and the Baptist dogma on baptism. The theological reason that (Ana)baptists reject baptizing those under the age of X is the reason you gave in post 167. Yes, the theological reason is the uber-synergism of the (Ana)baptist.

 

[atpollard]

Well, now the "ana" part of the name has been dropped, but it's the same dogma on baptism...

I think your post 167 documents the contradiction between the Reformed theology on justification and the Baptist dogma on baptism. The theological reason for why (Ana)baptists reject baptizing those under the age of X is the reason you gave in post 167. Yes, the theological reason is the uber-synergism of the (Ana)baptist. The reason why (Ana)baptist dogmatically invented Anti-Paedobaptism and the Age of Accountability is purely because of the doctrine you proclaimed in post 167 - it was simply a necessary invention of its uber-synergism for the reason you so well stated.

- Josiah

If the Anabaptists believe salvation is synergistic and the Particular Baptists believe that immersion into water is an ordinance done in obedience after one is already saved (monergistically) by God, then the beliefs have radically different origins and you mis-speak when you state that a Particular/Reformed Baptist is just an Anabaptist that has dropped the 'Ana'. Both Anabaptists and Particular Baptists reached the conclusion that infants should not be baptized, but they reached that conclusion for radically different reasons.

 

[MennoSota]

Well, now the "ana" part of the name has been dropped, but it's the same dogma on baptism...

I think your post 167 documents the contradiction between the Reformed theology on justification and the Baptist dogma on baptism. The theological reason for why (Ana)baptists reject baptizing those under the age of X is the reason you gave in post 167. Yes, the theological reason is the uber-synergism of the (Ana)baptist. The reason why (Ana)baptist dogmatically invented Anti-Paedobaptism and the Age of Accountability is purely because of the doctrine you proclaimed in post 167 - it was simply a necessary invention of its uber-synergism for the reason you so well stated.



- Josiah

No it's not. You are simply wrong.

 

[Josiah]

.

 

[Josiah]

.

 

[Pedrito]

Apologies in advance if this has already been said (or said better). I haven't had the time to read all the posts in detail.

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

Thread title [emphasis added]: Can babies be conscious of their baptism?

Post #1 [emphasis added]: [MENTION=387]DHoffmann[/MENTION], you don't think babies are conscious during their baptisms? Do you think they're conscious when they're being fed?

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

I have pointed out before (including in CH, if memory serves) that imprecision and inconsistency are hallmarks of “Christian” debate. They are essential tools in the defence of many post-Nicene doctrines and practices.

Please look at the above quotes carefully for a moment.

I propose that there is a distinct difference between:
- A baby being conscious of its baptism – the “of” carrying the implication of understanding the baptism’s significance; and
- A baby being conscious during its baptism – conscious of being tormented by being tipped sideways by a virtual stranger and having water poured on its head.

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

But why have I even bothered to point that out?

That won’t stop the same argument (or one like it) being used again some time in the future when found convenient. Will it?

Imprecision and inconsistency – identifiable hallmarks – essential hallmarks – used to defend treasured doctrines and practices – and to attack people and ideas that threaten those doctrines and practices.

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

And all the while, God is looking on...

 

[Albion]

I have pointed out before (including in CH, if memory serves) that imprecision and inconsistency are hallmarks of “Christian” debate. They are essential tools in the defence of many post-Nicene doctrines and practices.

Please look at the above quotes carefully for a moment.

I propose that there is a distinct difference between:
- A baby being conscious of its baptism – the “of” carrying the implication of understanding the baptism’s significance; and
- A baby being conscious during its baptism – conscious of being tormented by being tipped sideways by a virtual stranger and having water poured on its head.

The basic point you make about the difference there is right. But it’s also ironic, since it doesn't really matter if the child is, or is not, aware of being baptized--not any more than if he is aware of and consenting to being vaccinated. Hopefully, you are not against immunizations, too.

 

[MennoSota]

The basic point you make about the difference there is right. But it’s also ironic, since it doesn't really matter if the child is, or is not, aware of being baptized--not any more than if he is aware of and consenting to being vaccinated. Hopefully, you are not against immunizations, too.

Are you claiming that baptism is a synonym of immunization?
If so, then I take it you believe baptism saves a person and therefore Jesus atonement is not needed.
Since I doubt you believe such nonsense, I conclude that your comparison to immunization is poorly chosen on your part.

 

[Albion]

Are you claiming that baptism is a synonym of immunization?

I am saying that it is like an immunization to this extent--it is done for the benefit of one who is not old enough to do it for himself, the point being that the sacrament is GODs sacrament, instituted by Him for our benefit, not something we do to (allegedly) please Him (as if though this ritual would do that anyway).

If so, then I take it you believe baptism saves a person...

For only the umpteenth time of my saying it, no, I do not.

That will also be my reply the next time you make this ridiculous assertion, as I know you will..

 

[Josiah]

Some points....


1. Infant baptism will never be acceptable to synergists. 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. For those who are NOT radical synergists, the issue is different: 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 prohibition is nowhere taught) 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. They 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. 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.



- Josiah




.