Can babies be conscious of their baptism?

[MennoSota]

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).


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..

Let's be honest. The benefit of infant baptism is for the parents and other church attendees so they can tell themselves their kid will go to heaven. It's a placebo, not an immunization.
The sacrament is twisted to become something of little to no value in the child's life. Why not just have a baby dedication where parents and congregants covenant to raise the child by training them in God's word? Then, when God has clearly gifted them faith, baptize them.
What you are suggesting is not an immunization, it's a placebo.

 

[Josiah]

Let's be honest. The benefit of infant baptism is for the parents and other church attendees so they can tell themselves their kid will go to heaven..

I think here's honesty....

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 western 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 just 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/obiedence 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.



.

.

 

[Lamb]

Let's be honest. The benefit of infant baptism is for the parents and other church attendees so they can tell themselves their kid will go to heaven.

No. The benefit of baptism is God working in that human according to Jesus' command.

 

[atpollard]

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..

Reading all the way to the end improves comprehension.

Since I doubt you believe such nonsense, I conclude that your comparison to immunization is poorly chosen on your part.

Will that also be your reply the next time he doesn't make that "ridiculous assertion"?

 

[atpollard]

No. The benefit of baptism is God working in that human according to Jesus' command.

Which command are YOU referring to?

 

[MennoSota]

No. The benefit of baptism is God working in that human according to Jesus' command.

This seems like you are teaching salvation via baptism. Please clarify. What command of Jesus is the infant choosing to follow?

 

[Albion]

Let's be honest. The benefit of infant baptism is for the parents and other church attendees so they can tell themselves their kid will go to heaven. It's a placebo, not an immunization.

Wow. I actually was thinking you would wait a bit longer to say your mantra--baptism is believed to guarantee salvation--once more.
If you want to review all the correct answers to this matter, read my two previous posts another time. I am available to answer questions if necessary.

 

[Lamb]

This seems like you are teaching salvation via baptism. Please clarify. What command of Jesus is the infant choosing to follow?

Jesus saves and his work on the cross is given to us by His word and we receive in faith for our salvation. Water and word makes baptism. We can only receive that which God gives and He gives freely through the waters...it's not separate from Jesus or the cross but a connection that you are missing by ignoring the multitude of baptismal verses that have been pointed out to you in a few threads here.

 

[MennoSota]

Jesus saves and his work on the cross is given to us by His word and we receive in faith for our salvation. Water and word makes baptism. We can only receive that which God gives and He gives freely through the waters...it's not separate from Jesus or the cross but a connection that you are missing by ignoring the multitude of baptismal verses that have been pointed out to you in a few threads here.

Explain this phrase: "Water and word makes baptism."
It seems that you are saying that God gives salvation via baptism. All the baptism verses in the Bible will never teach what you are claiming.
You are preaching a gospel that is "grace...plus." Or perhaps "grace juxtaposed with baptism equals salvation." In either case it is not the gospel of grace taught in the Bible.
The Bible is clear. "Grace plus...nothing else." It's all grace.

 

[MennoSota]

Jesus saves and his work on the cross is given to us by His word and we receive in faith for our salvation. Water and word makes baptism. We can only receive that which God gives and He gives freely through the waters...it's not separate from Jesus or the cross but a connection that you are missing by ignoring the multitude of baptismal verses that have been pointed out to you in a few threads here.

So...no grace in your gospel?

I still have no idea what you mean by water and word. It seems you're using church speak that only Lutherans might know through church dogma.

 

[Lamb]

So...no grace in your gospel?

I still have no idea what you mean by water and word. It seems you're using church speak that only Lutherans might know through church dogma.

The grace is that our Lord died for us on the cross and gives us that benefit by His word through faith so we may have eternal life. I know you do not understand water and word because you refuse to see the verses that have been pointed out to you and no, it's not just Lutheran dogma since those verses have been baptismal verses since the days of the disciples.

 

[Pedrito]

Albion on Post #177:

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.

1. Hopefully, you are not against immunizations, too.

Could that be a red herring?

Immunisation is a process that supposedly protects a person (who could be an infant) against maleficent infections, but which can and does cause horrendous side effects in some individuals. The rise in immunisations applied to infants has seen an accompanying advent of, and progressive increase in, life-threatening allergies in young people. Such allergies were unknown 50 years ago (in Australia, at least), or were so rare that the general populace was unaware of them.

2. 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.

I find it somewhat puzzling that Albion should address that particular point to me, as though I was the one who brought it up in the first place.

Has it not been authors of Lutheran background (in the main, at least) that have striven to establish that babies can have faith, even while in the womb, and therefore by implication can be understood to actually have faith at the time of their baptism?

So maybe Albion should ask those people whether or not they agree with his statement. And if they do agree, ask them why they expend so much effort arguing to the contrary.

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

Lämmchen In Post #183:

The benefit of baptism is God working in that human according to Jesus' command.

That statement appears to contradict some statements from other contributors of Baby Baptising background across various related threads. The situation seems to beg clarification.

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.

Once again, thanks in advance is extended.


Lämmchen's statements in Post #188 cannot be considered in any way a precise answer to MennoSota's request in Post #186. Can it? I hope my request fares better.

(Lämmchen: "Jesus saves and his work on the cross is given to us by His word and we receive in faith for our salvation. Water and word makes baptism. We can only receive that which God gives and He gives freely through the waters...it's not separate from Jesus or the cross but a connection that you are missing by ignoring the multitude of baptismal verses that have been pointed out to you in a few threads here.")

 

[Albion]

I find it somewhat puzzling that Albion should address that particular point to me, as though I was the one who brought it up in the first place.

Has it not been authors of Lutheran background (in the main, at least) that have striven to establish that babies can have faith, even while in the womb, and therefore by implication can be understood to actually have faith at the time of their baptism?

Oh dear. Pedrito is puzzled once again. Let me see if I can help you out with this. Lutheran writers, or one of them, have contended that babies can have faith. I have not made that contention myself. It has played no part in my posts.

So maybe Albion should ask those people whether or not they agree with his statement.

I dont think so. I am familiar with the Lutheran POV on this matter.

 

[Josiah]

Correct. Lutherans, in general, hesitate to dogmatically declare what God CANNOT do. Seems foolish.

Since John the Baptist had been given the gift of faith before he was even born, it not only seems POSSIBLE for God to do this but we have an example recorded in the Bible of Him actually doing it. But again, Lutherans generally don't dogmatically tell God what He cannot do. You'll find that at times among other Protestant groups, I realize.

 

[MennoSota]

The grace is that our Lord died for us on the cross and gives us that benefit by His word through faith so we may have eternal life. I know you do not understand water and word because you refuse to see the verses that have been pointed out to you and no, it's not just Lutheran dogma since those verses have been baptismal verses since the days of the disciples.

What verse?
Are you referring to verses ripped out of context in order to form a dogma?
But, if it is "water and word" then babies can't comprehend the word, thus...it's just water.
If the person is deaf, then what?
Perhaps you believe that all humans are given grace (saved and adopted at birth) and just need baptism as the "plus one" so that God gives them faith?
Whatever it is, I don't know the verses that preach such a doctrine.

 

[Josiah]

What verse?

Yeah. Were ARE these verses you keep insisting exist in the Bible but no one ever saw until some Anabaptist German in 1523?

You know...

".... BUT thou canst NOT baptize any under the age of X!"
".... BUT thou canst NOT baptize any until they chooseth Jesus as their personal Savior and chant the Sinner's Prayer!"
".... BUT thou canst NOT baptize any until such hath first wepthed buckets of tears in repentance!"
".... BUT thou canst NOT believe this is important since it is SO stressed and made equal to teach cuz it's just a waste of time and water!"

Yeah, where ARE these verses no one on the planet saw for 1500 years and so baptized babies until some German Anabaptist synergist saw them in 1523 and said, "WOWEY ZOWEY! How come no one notice these verses before me?!?!

babies can't comprehend the word

Ah, your radical synergism shining through.... this invention does depend on synergism

TRUE, as monergist would insist, babies CANNOT understand or contribute ANYTHING WHATSOEVER - but then no one can. Not John the Baptist still in his mother's womb, not the 45 year old with 5 Ph.D.'s, 2 seminary degrees, and IQ of 210 who has memorized every word of the Bible. NEITHER is capable of understanding the things of God, NEITHER is able to contribute or do or perform or merit ANYTHING from God. If one understands ANYTHING AT ALL, it is solely and only and exclusively because GOD caused that. I know Anabaptists believe God is rendered impotent by those under the never-disclosed age of X (God simply being not so able, not up to this) but most Christians disagree (John the Baptist would too).




.

 

[Josiah]

.


MennoSota -


1. Infant baptism will never be acceptable to synergists. Thus you 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. 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. Thus, your defense of this new invention.



- Josiah




.

 

[Lamb]

Albion on Post #177:


1. Hopefully, you are not against immunizations, too.

Could that be a red herring?

Immunisation is a process that supposedly protects a person (who could be an infant) against maleficent infections, but which can and does cause horrendous side effects in some individuals. The rise in immunisations applied to infants has seen an accompanying advent of, and progressive increase in, life-threatening allergies in young people. Such allergies were unknown 50 years ago (in Australia, at least), or were so rare that the general populace was unaware of them.

2. 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.

I find it somewhat puzzling that Albion should address that particular point to me, as though I was the one who brought it up in the first place.

Has it not been authors of Lutheran background (in the main, at least) that have striven to establish that babies can have faith, even while in the womb, and therefore by implication can be understood to actually have faith at the time of their baptism?

So maybe Albion should ask those people whether or not they agree with his statement. And if they do agree, ask them why they expend so much effort arguing to the contrary.

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

Lämmchen In Post #183:


That statement appears to contradict some statements from other contributors of Baby Baptising background across various related threads. The situation seems to beg clarification.

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.

Once again, thanks in advance is extended.


Lämmchen's statements in Post #188 cannot be considered in any way a precise answer to MennoSota's request in Post #186. Can it? I hope my request fares better.

(Lämmchen: "Jesus saves and his work on the cross is given to us by His word and we receive in faith for our salvation. Water and word makes baptism. We can only receive that which God gives and He gives freely through the waters...it's not separate from Jesus or the cross but a connection that you are missing by ignoring the multitude of baptismal verses that have been pointed out to you in a few threads here.")

Pedrito, I've posted in other baptism threads the benefits any human receives from God in baptism.

 

[Lamb]

What verse?
Are you referring to verses ripped out of context in order to form a dogma?
But, if it is "water and word" then babies can't comprehend the word, thus...it's just water.
If the person is deaf, then what?
Perhaps you believe that all humans are given grace (saved and adopted at birth) and just need baptism as the "plus one" so that God gives them faith?
Whatever it is, I don't know the verses that preach such a doctrine.

The verse is not ripped out...but instead has been viewed as a baptismal one until more modern times so perhaps you should reevaluate that?

Baptism is one means of grace that God has chosen to use to bring us the benefits of the cross. Yes, I know you deny that too but until modern times, that's what was believed. It's not something extra to gain salvation since it's connected to Jesus and His death and the verses I've provided over and over in other baptism threads have shown clearly that connection.

 

[MennoSota]

The verse is not ripped out...but instead has been viewed as a baptismal one until more modern times so perhaps you should reevaluate that?

Baptism is one means of grace that God has chosen to use to bring us the benefits of the cross. Yes, I know you deny that too but until modern times, that's what was believed. It's not something extra to gain salvation since it's connected to Jesus and His death and the verses I've provided over and over in other baptism threads have shown clearly that connection.

Means of grace? That is just church dogma. It doesn't matter if dogma is 1 day old or 1500 years old...it's still dogma. In this case it is dogma that has no solid foundation in scripture.