But not in an infant. Infants do not have faith, child-like or otherwise.
Ah, you're not a parent!

And God certainly isn't powerful enough to begin to create faith in an infant! Nooooo!!!

I'm a parent and a grandparent. If you want to believe that infants can have faith, then go for it. You will belong to a justifiably very small club.

Wondergirl
Does God begin the work of faith in a young child, even in an infant?

Please expand and develop what that means.

An infant looks expectantly at a parent (usually the mother) to feed, to amuse, to clean up a dirty diaper. That faith continues to be the case as the baby matures. God has planted within that baby the need for love and care -- those seeds of faith in someone who loves us in our dependency, that is, the basis of faith in Jesus.

Wondergirl
An infant looks expectantly at a parent (usually the mother) to feed, to amuse, to clean up a dirty diaper. That faith continues to be the case as the baby matures. God has planted within that baby the need for love and care -- those seeds of faith in someone who loves us in our dependency, that is, the basis of faith in Jesus.

Well said. Thanks. Most "free church" denominations (as opposed to liturgy-based) do what they call baby dedications. We did it with all three of ours. Before the church the parents declare that the child will be raised to know and love Jesus and to receive him at an early age. Your description of baptism sounds similar, only with water. They reserve baptism for the time when the person actually makes a public declaration of faith.

I got to baptize all three of my daughters. Still one of the greatest privileges of my life. And the fact is, as they've grown up, they've taught me more about being a Christian than I ever taught them.


jlisenbe
But not in an infant. Infants do not have faith, child-like or otherwise.

They trust the large person in their range of view to do everything for them, all they have to do is cry. Infants have nothing but faith.

They trust the large person in their range of view to do everything for them, all they have to do is cry. Infants have nothing but faith.That's not what is being talked about. It is one thing for an infant to have faith in a parent. It's an entirely different matter for an infant to have, as WG claims, saving faith in Christ. What you are describing in infant dedication is quite different from what she is insisting took place with her in infant baptism. They are as different as night and day. Ask her if you need to. She has posted it on a number of occasions. Here, for instance.

To Hell with Hell!!! - Page 8 (askmehelpdesk.com) (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=850082&page=8&p=3887425#post3887425)

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showpost.php?p=3858342&postcount=165

Why are you limiting God's love for each of us and His power to become part of us even when we are infants?

"'Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the Lord Almighty." Zech. 4:6

As that baby matures, it will gain "the fruit of the Spirit -- love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control." Gal.5:22-23

You could also accuse me of limiting God's power to turn grasshoppers into spaceships. It's not an issue of what God can do. It's an issue of what God's Word says He will do, and what His Word says, He accomplishes by His Spirit. But you can't just proclaim your own desires and then attach them to God. It doesn't work that way.

You've never watched an infant grow and mature in the Spirit's love and grace? I have at least twice with my own sons.

I've never seen an infant born again by exercising faith in Christ and neither have you, but if you want to hold on to that idea, then be my guest.

It's not a done deal at Baptism. The child GROWS in grace, just like it grows physically and mentally and emotionally.

It's not a done deal at Baptism. The child GROWS in grace, just like it grows physically and mentally and emotionally.
But doesn't the child at some point need to accept or reject that gift of grace? Isn't there a decision somewhere along the line?


They trust the large person in their range of view to do everything for them, all they have to do is cry. Infants have nothing but faith.
That's not what is being talked about. It is one thing for an infant to have faith in a parent. It's an entirely different matter for an infant to have, as WG claims, saving faith in Christ. What you are describing in infant dedication is quite different from what she is insisting took place with her in infant baptism. They are as different as night and day. Ask her if you need to. She has posted it on a number of occasions. Here, for instance.
I know. But that total dependence level of faith is the kind Jesus said to have, the faith of a child. From birth, even without the language skills to express it, a child knows their parent(s) will provide everything. They don't worry, they have faith. Not faith in Christ of course, they don't know who he is. But the foundation of complete trust is there from the beginning. The goal is to teach the child to place that trust in Him as early as possible. Obviously, in my case it worked.
As for baptism, she also suggested it's a symbolic act, so that's a little confusing. My dad had a wonderful saying about folks who believe baptism is necessary for salvation: God's grace is too strong for them. They have to dilute it with water.

He had a unique ability to turn a phrase.

I'd like to see the context of that, but from a Catholic perspective I understand why he said it.

It's from A Letter to the Duke of Norfolk. Be warned, they didn't write short letters in those days. He writes about Popes, Protestants and Prime Ministers in addition to conscience.


It reminds me of the seven Noachic laws vs. the 613 Mitzvot in Judaism.

You sent me to reading all about those laws. Hebrew scholarship leaves nary a stone unturned. So many commandments, and Christians think there are only TEN!


I don't think I'd like a God with double standards, but that's just me.

"Religion" has a tendency to do that, doesn't it? Be careful when the "theologians" start to write things down and/or put collections of books together. Contradictions and confusions seem to be unavoidable, the Bible being a prime example. The core message is always there, but the add-ons often obscure it.


Absence of God as I understand it isn't the same as annihilationism.

You are correct. I jumped the gun.


One exists, but totally alone.

Between this and a fiery hell is a Hobson's Choice. Being a man of flesh and blood, the latter is more terrifying, but the former is no prize. Either way, I cannot believe a loving God would ever allow his creation to suffer eternally with such methods.


Quite so. Even when he mentioned the fire prepared for the devil and his angels as JL cited, we're talking about fire that doesn't oxidize fuel so the individuals are burned forever. But if the fire doesn't oxidize, how does it create pain or torment? Reading it literally creates more problems than it solves. And if we realize that Jesus is describing something that is so indescribably much worse even than the imagery he uses, it can give one pause and cause one to ask "How do I cancel my reservation?"

Another conundrum created by those who wish to ignore the core message.


fm dwashbur
But there are those who simply do not want to live in eternity with God, any god. What's the Almighty supposed to do with them?

fm Athos
I find that personally difficult to comprehend - that some, having knowledge of God - reject him. That would seem to put evil on a par with the good. Just my way of thinking.

fm Dwashbur
I wish it were otherwise, but I've met a few.

Thanks to the anonymity of the internet and its social media, I'm coming around to the same conclusion. Not there yet, but I'm beginning to re-examine my take on human nature. Maybe "absence of good" is a better way to think of the problem rather than evil being on "a par with the good". This marvelous new technology has two sides - light and dark. We need another Moses to lead us out of Egypt and into the Promised Land.



fm dwashbur
The other conclusion I came to: I hate theology.

fm Athos
Here's a link that illustrates some of what we have been discussing.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...en#post3884258

The last line of the link is a nice summary.

fm Dwashbur
Very well said.


As far as I'm concerned, legalizing Christianity way back when was a mistake. It gave theologians and church leaders too much time to sit around and think things up that had nothing to do with actual worship of Jesus, and create an impossibly complicated religion that builds on uncertainty and fear to make and keep converts.

No argument there. But that two-sided coin shows up again. With all you said being true, there was also a universal sense of religious solace that someday all would be well. Pie in the sky? Maybe, but it seems to have been effective for all from Kings to serfs.


What Jesus brought was so simple, people like Cornelius and his household didn't even have to say a word and He accepted them. C.S. Lewis has no idea when he became a Christian. He said he was on a trip from point A to point B. When he started out, he wasn't, and by the time he reached his destination, he was.

The simplicity of Jesus and his emphasis on love belies the horrific stories added to his message by the religious establishment soon after they gained power. Hardly a generation passed before they were executing non-believers and calling them heretics - a word that has lasted to this day as a synonym for evil (i.e., non-belief as demanded).



Jesus didn't say that. Somebody else threw that stuff in when they discovered their copies of Mark didn't have the actual resurrection account. It's not authoritative in any way.

Among other examples!


But this is what professional theology has given us

A minor quibble - I would substitute professional Churchmen for Theologians. I can't dismiss Augustine, Aquinas, Erasmus, Martin Luther King, et al, even (heretically) Siddartha, LaoTzu, the Hindu gurus, Isaiah, all the spiritual masters who labored seeking the truth.


Jesus is merciful. All I have to do is cry out "God, be merciful to me"

Amen !!

I know. But that total dependence level of faith is the kind Jesus said to have, the faith of a child. From birth, even without the language skills to express it, a child knows their parent(s) will provide everything. They don't worry, they have faith. Not faith in Christ of course, they don't know who he is. But the foundation of complete trust is there from the beginning. The goal is to teach the child to place that trust in Him as early as possible. Obviously, in my case it worked.
As for baptism, she also suggested it's a symbolic act, so that's a little confusing. My dad had a wonderful saying about folks who believe baptism is necessary for salvation: God's grace is too strong for them. They have to dilute it with water.All in all, a good statement. I don't know how strong an infant's faith in a parent is since they can't express that, but I'm sure it is at least somewhat in place. I feel sure that many infants lose that faith within a few weeks.

I think your words about "trust" versus "belief" were good.

But doesn't the child at some point need to accept or reject that gift of grace? Isn't there a decision somewhere along the line?
That's what Sunday School is all about -- to study the Bible, to learn about God's love and mercy. A year or two of Confirmation classes sum up all the teaching that has gone on through the years, and the pastor will ask the by-then early teens (and also adults -- another subtopic) to publicly confess their maturing faith.


All in all, a good statement. I don't know how strong an infant's faith in a parent is since they can't express that, but I'm sure it is at least somewhat in place. I feel sure that many infants lose that faith within a few weeks.
Why would infants lose faith in parent(s) who are always available and, when necessary, provide reliable and loving care in their stead?

Why would infants lose faith in parent(s) who are always available and, when necessary, provide reliable and loving care in their stead?





Are you serious? There are so many poorly handled children now that it would be hard to count. There are many kids either abused or neglected as infants.

Are you serious? There are so many poorly handled children now that it would be hard to count. There are many kids either abused or neglected as infants.
I said the parents WHO ARE ALWAYS AVAILABLE....like you and I were. Too many aren't. That's why we need to be watchful and do what we can to educate and be supportive.

I was not responding to your statement. I was responding to DW's.

I was not responding to your statement. I was responding to DW's.
Please always note the name of the person you're quoting.

The entire quote was above my reply. Did you think it was yours???

The entire quote was above my reply. Did you think it was yours???
You quoted: "Why would infants lose faith in parent(s) who are always available and, when necessary, provide reliable and loving care in their stead?"

I said that in Post #265 -- right above yours.

This is the quote I responded to. My reply that you quoted was in post 2.....6....,4.


I know. But that total dependence level of faith is the kind Jesus said to have, the faith of a child. From birth, even without the language skills to express it, a child knows their parent(s) will provide everything. They don't worry, they have faith. Not faith in Christ of course, they don't know who he is. But the foundation of complete trust is there from the beginning. The goal is to teach the child to place that trust in Him as early as possible. Obviously, in my case it worked.
As for baptism, she also suggested it's a symbolic act, so that's a little confusing. My dad had a wonderful saying about folks who believe baptism is necessary for salvation: God's grace is too strong for them. They have to dilute it with water.

To which I responded, " I feel sure that many infants lose that faith within a few weeks." So my original response that you referred to was to DW.

What we got here is failure to communicate.

jlisenbe
This is the quote I responded to. My reply that you quoted was in post 2.....6....,4.

I know. But that total dependence level of faith is the kind Jesus said to have, the faith of a child. From birth, even without the language skills to express it, a child knows their parent(s) will provide everything. They don't worry, they have faith. Not faith in Christ of course, they don't know who he is. But the foundation of complete trust is there from the beginning. The goal is to teach the child to place that trust in Him as early as possible. Obviously, in my case it worked.
As for baptism, she also suggested it's a symbolic act, so that's a little confusing. My dad had a wonderful saying about folks who belie
ve baptism is necessary for salvation: God's grace is too strong for them. They have to dilute it with water.
To which I responded, " I feel sure that many infants lose that faith within a few weeks." So my original response that you referred to was to DW.

What showed up that WG responded to was this:


jlisenbe
Why would infants lose faith in parent(s) who are always available and, when necessary, provide reliable and loving care in their stead?
Are you serious? There are so many poorly handled children now that it would be hard to count. There are many kids either abused or neglected as infants.

That generated her response:


Wondergirl
Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
Are you serious? There are so many poorly handled children now that it would be hard to count. There are many kids either abused or neglected as infants.
I said the parents WHO ARE ALWAYS AVAILABLE....like you and I were. Too many aren't. That's why we need to be watchful and do what we can to educate and be supportive.

I'm inclined to blame the way the AMHD page handles replies for the confusion. If there's one thing I learned doing software detective work on PCs for 15 years, it's this: whenever possible, blame the computer.

It's all good. Thanks for the mediation!!

A minor quibble - I would substitute professional Churchmen for Theologians. I can't dismiss Augustine, Aquinas, Erasmus, Martin Luther King, et al, even (heretically) Siddartha, LaoTzu, the Hindu gurus, Isaiah, all the spiritual masters who labored seeking the truth.

As great as those people were and as great as some of their ideas are, none can match Jesus. Isaiah wrote part of the Bible and Erasmus is one of my personal heroes, and they all died and stayed dead. That's the difference: Jesus rose. He indicated that his resurrection would be the proof that he is who he said he is, and he did it so he is so there it is. (Is that convoluted enough? I can do worse.)

Jesus' resurrection is the event that sets him apart and constitutes the watershed of human history. The fact that people have done what they do and cluttered the story up with a bunch of extraneous stuff, doesn't change the reality of the event itself and the implications thereof.

Good thoughts. I've often considered that the only really important question a person need ask is this. Was Jesus Christ really raised from the dead? If the answer is yes, then you have an obligation to respond to that and your life will be changed. If the answer is no, then no other questions really matter.

Might add that many people question the Gospel accounts since it makes it much easier to ignore the statements of Jesus if you can simply deny He ever made them.

As great as those people were and as great as some of their ideas are, none can match Jesus.

No offense, but you misread what I wrote thereby missing the point. At no place did I mention Jesus' resurrection. Nor was I comparing any of them to Jesus. I was critiquing your use of “theologian” as the guilty parties adding to the Bible. I changed that to “Churchmen”. I changed it because the spiritual masters I mentioned were all great theologians and responsible for laboring mightily in a search for the truth.

Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
As great as those people were and as great as some of their ideas are, none can match Jesus.
No offense, but you misread what I wrote thereby missing the point. At no place did I mention Jesus' resurrection. Nor was I comparing any of them to Jesus. I was critiquing your use of “theologian” as the guilty parties adding to the Bible. I changed that to “Churchmen”. I changed it because the spiritual masters I mentioned were all great theologians and responsible for laboring mightily in a search for the truth.

Augustine let his own personal issues color his theology, and he contributed greatly to the suppression of women in the church as well as vilifying sex. Aside from that, valid point.

Augustine let his own personal issues color his theology, and he contributed greatly to the suppression of women in the church as well as vilifying sex. Aside from that, valid point.

Lol – true enough. “Give me chastity, Lord, but not yet”.


Aquinas and Erasmus were also chastized by the Church to retract under pressure. Aquinas changing his take on “salvation outside the Church” and Erasmus with his “adjustment” re the Trinity to satisfy the powers-that-were. Both were initially correct before they were forced to change.


The others never even heard of Christianity. I may be stretching a point. Not the first time.

Erasmus' insertion of 1 John 5:7 into a subsequent edition was a capitulation, but no to the church authorities. It was a capitulation to his own conscience and sense of honor. When the authorities asked him why he left it out, he said it wasn't in any of his manuscripts. They threw the requisite hissy fit and demanded that he insert it. He refused, but Erasmus being Erasmus, he made a rash promise: if they could show him one Greek manuscript with the verse in it, he would include it in his next edition. So they made one and gave it to him. He knew what they had done but he couldn't prove it, and he didn't specify that they couldn't do that. His sense of honor to his word required him to keep his promise.

It's too bad he was such a good man, and not a bit more of a jerk like me. I would have kept my promise and printed an edition with it in. Maybe 12 copies, one for each of the stuffed shirts. Then I'd put out a next edition without it, because he never promised to KEEP it in after that one edition.

Again, I'm a much bigger jerk than he was. Then again, he did write Julius Exclusus...

Erasmus' insertion of 1 John 5:7 into a subsequent edition was a capitulation, but no to the church authorities.

Not sure why you say that, considering the clear demand of the church authorities you outlined below. Semantics?


It was a capitulation to his own conscience and sense of honor. When the authorities asked him why he left it out, he said it wasn't in any of his manuscripts. They threw the requisite hissy fit and demanded that he insert it. He refused, but Erasmus being Erasmus, he made a rash promise: if they could show him one Greek manuscript with the verse in it, he would include it in his next edition. So they made one and gave it to him. He knew what they had done but he couldn't prove it, and he didn't specify that they couldn't do that. His sense of honor to his word required him to keep his promise.

See the parts in BOLD. Erasmus kowtowed. Claiming he was honor-bound to include the added verse seems self-serving on his part. Maybe it was a question of saving his neck, not his honor.

See the parts in BOLD. Erasmus kowtowed. Claiming he was honor-bound to include the added verse seems self-serving on his part. Maybe it was a question of saving his neck, not his honor.

Please read it again, especially the part where he refused to insert it just because they told him to.

Please read it again, especially the part where he refused to insert it just because they told him to.

Well, I read it again, but I read it right the first time. Ultimately, Erasmus DID insert it because they told him to. Claiming he was forced to insert it to satisfy his honor is like Trump insisting every bad fact attributed to him is a world-wide witch hunt, hoax, and a pack of lies.

That might be a little overboard, but who knows - Erasmus may be a Trumpian role model. After all, Trump's grandfather, removed 21 times, was a personal friend of Erasmus. I'd give you the secret link, but then I'd have to report you to the FBI.

It's in his letters. He wrote extensively about it to his friends.
Erasmus is my man, my friend. I've studied him almost more than I've studied Jesus. He often gets a bad rap because scholars haven't looked closely enough at what he actually said.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. My friend.

Athos
You're making a mountain out of a molehill. My friend.

Uh huh. We'll go with that.