Science confirms what peadobaptizers have long known

[Chemnitz]

Researchers have learned that infants begin lying as early as 6 months according to the news reports. With science now confirming what has long been known as a biblical fact (Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me), how can people still insist that infants are not in need of Christ, the claim of those professing the age of accountability?

 

[dan e.]

Hmmm...I'm not so sure what I think about it. I'm not too confident that a child's brain actually understands that they are being deceptive, or lying. I think it has more to do with option #1: punishment versus option #2: reward. They are just responding with what doesn't cause pain/punishment, not that they are intentionally being liars.

Of course, whether its true or not still doesn't discount the fact that children need a Savior and are sinners from conception.

 

[Chessic]

Edit: Doh!

Can infants understand enough of the gospel to accept Christ? Are they able to sin but unable to accept Christ?

 

[Scarlett O.]

I'm not going to get in the infant baptism debate.

But this researcher's claims about infants lying seem a bit flimsy.

She said that the "evidence" that "lying" is taking place is when 6 months old practice what she calls fake crying or crying when nothing is really wrong.

She says that you can tell it's fake because they will cry, then pause to see if their mothers are responding, then cry again. She calls that lying.

I call that a baby calling for its mother. Does something have to be wrong for a baby to call for its mother? Babies can't talk. To get their mother's attention, they cry out. So what if they pause to see if they can here her voice.

If I could roll my eyes back any farther in my head, they would get stuck. :laugh:

 

[J.D.]

I don't see where a peadobaptist would have a monopoly on this issue. Any sensible credobaptist - and yes, they do exist - would admit indwelling and active sin in the infant.

 

[Gwyneth]

"If I could roll my eyes back any farther in my head, they would get stuck. "

Is that lady a MOTHER, I wonder ..........

 

[DHK]

Recent research only confirms what the Bible has been saying for over 3,000 years now.

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
--What else is new under the sun?

Next time please get your infant to talk in fully formed sentences explaining the gospel and how Christ paid the penalty for his sins. You can ask your infant to explain the substitutionary atonement while you're at it

 

[Chemnitz]

A child who fake cries could have learned mom responds faster when I cry than when I babble so I will cry to make her think something is wrong and will respond faster, but whether or not the actions described actually indicate deceptiveness is up for grabs. However, these actions are indicative of a self-centered mindset which is equally sinful.


DHK, who ever said the ability to communicate understanding is required for salvation? Faith does not necessitate understanding, in fact, more often than not faith exists even when we cannot understand. Faith is a matter of trust not knowledge.

 

[Scarlett O.]

A child who fake cries could have learned mom responds faster when I cry than when I babble so I will cry to make her think something is wrong and will respond faster, but whether or not the actions described actually indicate deceptiveness is up for grabs. However, these actions are indicative of a self-centered mindset which is equally sinful.

I don't think this concept of a 6-month-old practicing an intended deception is up for grabs at all! I think it's ridiculous.

Surely, we all know that we are born with a sin nature and that self-centeredness is one of the basic roots of our sin nature. I'll not deny that.

But why does a 6-month-old crying for its mother when it's not hungry or dirty or in pain constitute "deception" or "self-centeredness"?

I don't think it's "fake crying" at all! It's REAL crying. The baby wants its mother. Maybe he/she just needs to hear the comfort of her voice or just wants her to tickle his/her tummy.

But a 6-month-old infant crying, then stopping to listen for a response from its mother, is not self-centeredness.

It's the only survival/communication skill he/she has at 6 months old. It's not a temper tantrum.

Now, if a 4-year-old is throwing a temper tantrum because he/she didn't get to eat a cookie before dinner and if he/she thinks that crying really loud and giving a good stomping of the feet will make Mother come a running with a cookie in her hand, so he/she cries really loud, then peeks around the corner to see if Mother is coming down the hall, then starts screaming in louder decibels.....then, yes....that's extreme selfishness on the part of the child.

A 4-year-old understands the concept of lies and truth.....manipulation and obedience.

A 6-month-old does not.

I just find this notion incredible.

 

[Chemnitz]

I don't think this concept of a 6-month-old practicing an intended deception is up for grabs at all! I think it's ridiculous.

Surely, we all know that we are born with a sin nature and that self-centeredness is one of the basic roots of our sin nature. I'll not deny that.

But why does a 6-month-old crying for its mother when it's not hungry or dirty or in pain constitute "deception" or "self-centeredness"?

I don't think it's "fake crying" at all! It's REAL crying. The baby wants its mother. Maybe he/she just needs to hear the comfort of her voice or just wants her to tickle his/her tummy.

But a 6-month-old infant crying, then stopping to listen for a response from its mother, is not self-centeredness.

It's the only survival/communication skill he/she has at 6 months old. It's not a temper tantrum.

Now, if a 4-year-old is throwing a temper tantrum because he/she didn't get to eat a cookie before dinner and if he/she thinks that crying really loud and giving a good stomping of the feet will make Mother come a running with a cookie in her hand, so he/she cries really loud, then peeks around the corner to see if Mother is coming down the hall, then starts screaming in louder decibels.....then, yes....that's extreme selfishness on the part of the child.

A 4-year-old understands the concept of lies and truth.....manipulation and obedience.

A 6-month-old does not.

I just find this notion incredible.

I think you are looking at it from a rose colored glasses perspective. Being sinful humans, it is entirely possible for them to act in a deceptive manner. Crying is not the only means of communication a 6 month old has in their repertoire, our little one was babbling by 6 months and she learned quickly that would get our attention by babbling.

The crying then stopping to listen and then crying again when there is no response is most definitely a self-centered action. You did not respond to them right then and there when they wanted you. Desiring other people's lives to revolve solely around you is the very definition of self-centeredness and these actions indicate such a thought process.

I think too many people underestimate what children are capable of understanding because they are limited in their means of communication.

 

[just-want-peace]

I just find this notion incredible.

Amen Scarlett, amen!

I think some people like this "researcher" are typical of those who have been "educated beyond their intelligence"!http://www.baptistboard.com/member.php?u=229

 

[DHK]

DHK, who ever said the ability to communicate understanding is required for salvation? Faith does not necessitate understanding, in fact, more often than not faith exists even when we cannot understand. Faith is a matter of trust not knowledge.

Then of a necessity, I would have to question your salvation. Faith requires an object. It is not some nebulous feeling that is stirred up within a person when he or she feels all wishy washy. Faith demands an object. The object of my faith is Christ.

Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Now if the object of your faith is your nursing mother (as it is in an infant), then I seriously question your salvation.

 

[Eliyahu]

I have read thru the article and found nothing in favor of PhaedoBaptism there, but it confirmed that all human beings are born sinful as the Scriptures said already.

From there we can confirm that the babies are in need of hearing the Gospel as early as possible, if they can hear the Gospel and understand it and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior, why should we not baptize such young children?

The article has nothing to support the Infant Baptism which baptize the babies who never believed in Jesus yet. Maybe it disproves Infant Baptism itself which is no scriptural at all.

We should not prohibit the Infants from coming to the Lord Jesus as early as possible, which doesn't mean any Baptism of the kids without confessing the faith.

 

[Chemnitz]

Then of a necessity, I would have to question your salvation. Faith requires an object. It is not some nebulous feeling that is stirred up within a person when he or she feels all wishy washy. Faith demands an object. The object of my faith is Christ.

Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Now if the object of your faith is your nursing mother (as it is in an infant), then I seriously question your salvation.

Having faith in something and understanding something are completely different things. You can have faith in something and still not understand what it is.

I have read thru the article and found nothing in favor of PhaedoBaptism there, but it confirmed that all human beings are born sinful as the Scriptures said already.

From there we can confirm that the babies are in need of hearing the Gospel as early as possible, if they can hear the Gospel and understand it and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior, why should we not baptize such young children?

The article has nothing to support the Infant Baptism which baptize the babies who never believed in Jesus yet. Maybe it disproves Infant Baptism itself which is no scriptural at all.

We should not prohibit the Infants from coming to the Lord Jesus as early as possible, which doesn't mean any Baptism of the kids without confessing the faith.

Paedobaptizers such as myself acknowledge that baptism is one of the means by which God delivers his grace to us. To deny a sinner access to that grace is in our eyes a heinous action. This article which reinforces that which we already knew, infants are sinners too means that anybody who denies a child of baptism is for all intensive purposes withholding Christ from them.

 

[DHK]

Having faith in something and understanding something are completely different things. You can have faith in something and still not understand what it is.

That is a false statement.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith."
Faith is based on knowledge--all the time. I must have knowledge in order to have faith. I must have knowledge and understanding of the gospel in order to put my faith, my belief, my confidence in its saving grace. Faith is confidence in the word of another. One must understand what that word is before he can put his faith in it. An infant has no such capability. An infant does not have the capability to have faith in the gospel. The only faith that it is capable of having is a very simplistic faith that its parents will provide and protect him. His trust in his parents, not in the gospel which is impossible for him to understand. His faith is that when his mother picks him up and holds him close to her breast in such a specific way that he will receive milk. Those are examples of faith. They are borne out of experience, experience based on repeated action which results in knowledge.
I know God's promises are true. They have never failed. They repeatedly show themselves to be true. I am confident that I can put my faith in His Word. That confidence or faith is based on understanding and knowledge--that which an infant is uncapable of--at least on the level of the comprehension of Biblical knowledge.

 

[BobRyan]

Researchers have learned that infants begin lying as early as 6 months according to the news reports. With science now confirming what has long been known as a biblical fact (Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me), how can people still insist that infants are not in need of Christ, the claim of those professing the age of accountability?

You know - these discussions go on year after year without the infant-baptizer group ever actually hearing what the other side is saying.

The REASON the bible does NOT provide ANY examples of infant baptism nor even allow for it is NOT that infants are NOT born in sin it is NOT that they do not NEED a savior.... rather it is that they CAN NOT repent, they HAVE no concept of CHOOSING Christ or FORSAKING sin and certainly not of "HEARING and ACCEPTING the WORD".

"Faith comes by HEARING and HEARING by the WORD of God... and without FAITH it is IMPOSSIBLE to Please God... according to that Baptism now saves you NOT the magical sacramental waters of baptism touching skin but rather an APPEAL TO GOD for a CLEAN conscience".

Sadly our infant-baptizing brethren prefer to overlook rather than take a serious detailed look at scripture on this subject.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Having faith in something and understanding something are completely different things. You can have faith in something and still not understand what it is.

True but abstract concepts like faith, belief, repentance, choosing salvation are all far beyond the reach of an infant so the infant-baptizing crowd knows not to appeal to these basic principles in the doctrine of baptism -- rather they faithfully flee them.

Paedobaptizers such as myself acknowledge that baptism is one of the means by which God delivers his grace to us.

It is more truthful to say "
Paedobaptizers such as myself LIKE TO IMAGINE that baptism is one of the means by which God delivers his grace to us EVEN THOUGH we have no Bible support for it. You see we feel Christian doctrine is OURS to edit".

Another thing that the infant-baptizing groups like to imagine is that infants are "denied grace" if they are denied the magic sacramental waters of baptism touching the skin.

To deny a sinner access to that grace is in our eyes a heinous action.

Fortunately NOBODY does that!

You have once again "imagined something" instead of finding truth in this regard.

This article which reinforces that which we already knew, infants are sinners too means that anybody who denies a child of baptism is for all intensive purposes withholding Christ from them.

No it does not -- once again you have "imagined" something regarding the idea that Baptism is NOT entered into by faith or that infants that ARE born in sin DO NOT have a savior without the mystical magical sacramental waters of Baptism touching their skin!

Read the Bible sir!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eliyahu]

Paedobaptizers such as myself acknowledge that baptism is one of the means by which God delivers his grace to us. To deny a sinner access to that grace is in our eyes a heinous action. This article which reinforces that which we already knew, infants are sinners too means that anybody who denies a child of baptism is for all intensive purposes withholding Christ from them.

Your theology is a heinous accusation against the True believers who refuse the Baptism to the unbelievers. To jusityfy your claim one must baptize any unbelievers to grant the grace, which is nothing but the paganism. The article never means that the Denial of the Infant Baptism is witholding Christ from the infants. Baptizing unbelievers thousand times don't make them Believers. Maybe you may not know yet what Being Bornagain means.