Re-Baptism, Knowledge of Remission of Sins Necessary?, Etc.

[CDHealy]

Jimmy:

If it "may be true of one or more individuals," then it *does* have a basis in fact.

In point of fact, I grew up in MOR Restoration Movement churches, went to school at Ozark, and while no one would explicitly identify faith with knowledge, once you dug into the arguments it was pretty clear that in point of practice, the two were identical.

I refer you to DCRs comments above.

[Mere Nick]

MN:

That's fair.  I should have some most do--I have met precious few who don't.

You should have said that most that you have met appear to.  Oh, well. 

[Jimmy]

Jimmy:

If it "may be true of one or more individuals," then it *does* have a basis in fact.

In point of fact, I grew up in MOR Restoration Movement churches, went to school at Ozark, and while no one would explicitly identify faith with knowledge, once you dug into the arguments it was pretty clear that in point of practice, the two were identical.

I refer you to DCRs comments above.

Again you generalized unfairly and inappropriately.  Based upon some of your earlier posts here at the forum, I might guess that you would be one of the first to severely object to any similar generalization about Orthodox religion. But to your point, do you believe that one can have faith in Jesus Christ without a knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  I don't.  There is no faith Jesus without knowing at least some of the rudimentary details of the Gospel of Jesus.  DCR's reference to Romans 10 was quite in order.

[CDHealy]

Now an assertion of unfair generalization is something else than having no basis in fact.

Is my generalization unfair?  Well, it would be hard to prove one way or another wouldn't it?  I mean after all, we have no sociological sampling to empirically verify it one way or another.  Have I met all RM Christians?  No.  Have I met, do I know more than you or anyone else?  Who knows?

In any case this is an internet forum and it's caveat lector.

Now to your question: faith in a person does not require knowledge with regard to doctrine.

Take infants.  Does an infant trust it's mother and father to provide for its needs?  Of course it does.  If it didn't it would die within hours.  Is that trust cognitive?  Depends upon what you mean by cognitive.  It certainly isn't analytic or verbal.  But it is a trust.  There is a bond and a connection.  And it doesn't even require a genetic component.  Adopted infants exhibit the same trust to non-genetically related parents.

So, I guess the question is: is Jesus a person or is Jesus a doctrine?  Does one have faith in a person or in one's acceptance and understanding of a particular doctrine?

[Jimmy]

Now an assertion of unfair generalization is something else than having no basis in fact.

Is my generalization unfair?  Well, it would be hard to prove one way or another wouldn't it?  I mean after all, we have no sociological sampling to empirically verify it one way or another.  Have I met all RM Christians?  No.  Have I met, do I know more than you or anyone else?  Who knows?

In any case this is an internet forum and it's caveat lector.

Now to your question: faith in a person does not require knowledge with regard to doctrine.

Take infants.  Does an infant trust it's mother and father to provide for its needs?  Of course it does.  If it didn't it would die within hours.  Is that trust cognitive?  Depends upon what you mean by cognitive.  It certainly isn't analytic or verbal.  But it is a trust.  There is a bond and a connection.  And it doesn't even require a genetic component.  Adopted infants exhibit the same trust to non-genetically related parents.

So, I guess the question is: is Jesus a person or is Jesus a doctrine?  Does one have faith in a person or in one's acceptance and understanding of a particular doctrine?

Oh good grief. 

Good bye.

[DCR]

Now to your question: faith in a person does not require knowledge with regard to doctrine.

Fundamentally speaking, I must disagree with this.  Now, when we say "knowledge with regard to doctrine," that leaves much to the imagination.  There are certainly degrees of knowledge with regard to doctrine.  And, doctrine ranges everywhere between the simple and the complex.  Everything from deep theological concepts that require years to grasp... to a simple "There is a God"... is doctrine.  I can hold to the simple doctrine of "There is a God" and without knowing about anything else doctrinally speaking, I now have a foundation for faith... a starting place for faith, if you will.  But, faith starts with some knowledge of or belief in something... even if it's the simplest knowledge possible.

Take infants.  Does an infant trust it's mother and father to provide for its needs?  Of course it does.  If it didn't it would die within hours.  Is that trust cognitive?  Depends upon what you mean by cognitive.  It certainly isn't analytic or verbal.  But it is a trust.  There is a bond and a connection.  And it doesn't even require a genetic component.  Adopted infants exhibit the same trust to non-genetically related parents.

Let's go with this analogy for a moment.  An infant certainly trusts his parents to provide for his needs.  But, I submit that he would not without first "knowing" or having knowledge of his parents.  Yes, an infant trusts his mother.  That's because he knows his mother since he has seen his mother and has personally experienced her presence.  So, he therefore has "knowledge" of her.  But, that infant doesn't trust someone he knows nothing about.  How can an infant trust someone he has never seen or else been made aware of the unknown person's existence?  Do we trust someone who we don't even know exists?  Of course not.  The infant knows his parents exist because he has seen them and has experienced being cared for by them.  The infant "learns" (attains knowledge) of who his parents are.  So, he comes to trust them.

But, does an infant know about God?

I have no way of knowing the answer to that question with certainty.  However, it seems reasonable that any "typical" infant would be ignorant of God without first knowing something about God.  An infant is certainly not ignorant of his parents since he sees them with his own eyes... learns who they are and then comes to trust them.  But, unless infants are somehow imparted some knowledge of God, I don't see how they can have "faith" in someone they have no way of knowing about under normal circumstances.

At some point, perhaps as the child reaches the age of a toddler and begins to understand language and our ability to explain certain simple concepts, there will come a time when we tell the child about God.  Think of something simple you might tell a child... "Little Timmy, did you know there's a place called Heaven, and God is there?  And, did you know that He made us?  He made everything in the world!  God made you, mommy, and daddy, and everyone else in the world!"

At that point, little Timmy may give a blank stare with his wondering eyes, for the first time beginning to ponder that there is something and someone else out there who he can't see with his own eyes.  A suggestion has been made to his thinking.  And, "knowledge" of God (as simple as it is) is taught to little Timmy for the first time.  Timmy now knows about the existence of God.  It's a very simple knowledge.  But, for the first time, since Timmy "believes" this knowledge that we've taught him, perhaps the spark of faith has begun for him.  Back to the original statement, we have just taught little Timmy "doctrine."  He now has simple knowledge of a basic doctrine.  It may not be much, but it is the beginning of faith.

I doubt there can be any faith without, at a minimum, a basic acceptance and cognition of at least some simple suggestion communicated, with regard to God or anything else.  Other than that, faith and trust is only possible when one directly experiences the one he puts his trust in.

Without either direct experience of the object of faith or else the acceptance of someone else's word with regard to the object of faith, there is only ignorance.  The one who doesn't "know about" God can only be oblivious to God, to say nothing about having "faith" in God.

[Lee Freeman]

The majority consensus among Churches of Christ until the mid-20th century was decidedly against rebaptism.

From Alexander Campbell's 1831 MH article "Rebaptism":

   Baptism is no where proposed as an expiatory rite. He that regards it as such-he who goes to the water as a Jew to the altar, and is baptized merely to obtain the remission of his sins, mistakes the whole matter.

   I have never heard of any person being baptized for the remission of sins committed since his first baptism, as the case is made out by our querist; but I have heard of some who were once baptized into Christ, and who in faith were buried and raised with the Lord, and have understandingly assumed him as their Saviour; not, however, having special regard to remission of sins in their baptism; I say, I have heard of some such being rebaptized-not for the purpose of being immersed into Christ, into his death, or of assuming him as their Saviour, but solely for the remission of their sins, that they might have the testimony of God assuring them of pardon. Of such cases we have heard. But how many honest and well disposed persons have been mistaken in their reasonings, and how many have acted in all great matters more from the impulse of the moment, than from calm and sober reflection!

   Their argument appears a very specious one when regarded only in one point of view. One says, "Was I ever baptized for remission of my sins! No, I reflected not on the matter; I had no special attention to the promise of remission. Indeed, I thought I had the remission of my sins through faith before I was baptized; and therefore expected it not at that time. I wished to obey the Lord, and obtained the answer of a good conscience that the Lord then approved me; but so soon as I saw that remission of sins was promised to be conferred through immersion, I concluded (to make the matter sure) to be immersed a second time, solely to obtain an assurance that I was forgiven. I found this assurance, and since I have been more happy than before." Such experiences I have heard. Others, however, have told me that they had no more happiness nor assurance after the second, than they had after the first immersion, for then they had all peace and joy in the Lord.

   This is the case fairly made out, as far as I am informed upon the subject. It appears, indeed, that this was making baptism a mere expiatory rite, and regarding it as desgined alone for ablution. It made void the former baptism, not because the subject did not believe and confess that Jesus was the Messiah the Son of God-not because the subject was not intelligently immersed into Christ, and did not constitutionally put him on, being, according to the commandment, immersed on said profession, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and thenceforth admitted into the family of God; but because the subject or the administrator did not fully understand the whole purport of the institution.

   As for the peace and assurance which some have obtained by a second baptism, it is easily explained. Let any person think, or imagine, that any act is ordained for any religious purpose, and when he has performed that act he will find peace. Some persons have been rebaptized in order to obtain the gift of the Holy Spirit, and have felt assured that they did obtain that gift, consequent upon their third baptism; but this was to be expected from the same law of our nature: for all who think must perceive that good and evil tidings, whether true or false, if only regarded as true, will operate upon the heart according to their nature; so of the objects of hope, joy, or any of the affections. It is only, however, when the hope, joy, or peace arises from the testimony of God, apprehended and embraced, that it can be permanent, or ought to be regarded as genuine. All true joy, peace, and hope must be resolved into truth. There is false joy, peace, and hope when the causes are imaginitive or false.

   I trust we need not attempt to show that Jesus Christ has not ordained any institution solely for the remission of sins-any rite or observance for expiation. Remission of sins is, indeed, connected with baptism; but so is adoption, sanctification, and all the blessings of the new institution. The salvation of the soul, which comprehends everything which can be enjoyed in this present world, is attached to it. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved. To be baptized exclusively, is not what is meant by putting on Christ, or by being immersed into Christ. No person, intelligent in the Christian  religion, can be baptized for the remission of his sins apart from all other blessings. For one, then, that has been born again, born of water and of the Spirit, one who has been baptized into Christ, confessing his faith in the person, character, and mission of Jesus, to be baptized a second time for the remission of sins by itself, or for the Holy Spirit by itself, or for any one blessing, is without command, precedent, or reason from the New Testament.

   Besides, no person can be born twice to come again into the same kingdom. The first birth introduces us into the kingdom of nature; regeneration, or being born of water and the Spirit, brings us into the kingdom of grace; and being born from the grave will introduce us into the kingdom of glory. NO man can be born twice into one and the same kingdom.

   How a person who has been born again and entered the kingdom of grace, can die in that kingdom, and be buried in that kingdom, and be born a second time into it, is not for me to explain. There is but one baptism, and but once baptism under the Christian King. Indeed, I know not how any proclaimer of the gospel, how any intelligent disciple, can presume to bury a living disciple; it is against the law! how can he immerse a believer a second time into Christ, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. He must have received a new commission. The old apostolic commission authorizes it not. I know some will say that the candidtates which they immersed a second time did not rightly understand baptism the first time. Well, I am persuaded they did not understand it the second time; and shall they be baptized a third time! But did all the believers whom the Apostles baptized understand their baptism in all its designs, meaning and bearings. We presume not, else the Apostles need not have written them to explain it: "Know you not," said Paul to the Romans,"that so many of us as were immersed into Jesus Christ were immersed into his death." But did Paul command any one to be baptized a second time, because he did not fully understand the whole import of his baptism? Did Peter command Simon to repent and be baptized again again for the remission of his sins? If any person ought to have been rebaptized, it was Simon the sorcerer. But no such idea is suggested anywhere in the New Testament.

Campbell opposed rebaptism all along. Regarding his own Baptist baptism he stated in 1832:

I was immersed by a Regular Baptist, but not in a Regular Baptist way. I stipulated with Matthias Luse that I should be immersed on the profession of the one fact, or proposition, that Jesus was the Messiah the Son of God, when I solicited his attendance with me on that occasion. He replied that it was not usual for the Baptists to immerse simply on that profession; but that he believed it to be scriptural. Fearing, however, to be called to account for it by some of his brethren, he solicited the attendance of Henry Spears, a very worthy brother, for whose undissembled piety I always cherish the highest regard, to accompany him and to bear the half of the censure which might fall upon him for this great aberration from the good old Baptist way. Brother Spears accompanied him, and on this profession alone I was immersed; nor have I ever immersed any person but upon the same profession which I made myself. (AC, "Dialogue on Reimmersion Concluded," MH, July, 1832)

But I do think that every one immersed by the Baptist preachers, or "laymen," who really believes in his heart and confesses with his mouth that Jesus is the Messiah, understanding the meaning of what he says[concerning his profession of faith] is introduced into this kingdom. ( Alexander Campbell MH, 1832)

I trust we need not attempt to show that Jesus Christ has not ordained any institution solely for the remission of sins -- any rite or observance for expiation.  Remisiion of sins is, indeed, connected with baptism; but so is adoption, sanctification, and all blessings of the new institution. The salvation of the soul, which comprehends everything which can be enjoyed in the present world, is attached to it. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved. To be baptized for the remission of sins exclusively, is not what is meant by putting on Christ, or by being immersed into Christ. (AC "Rebaptism," MH, Nov., 1831)

To require of every such applicant a statement of his views of each and every fact and ordinance in the Christian Institution; or to command a person, without examination, to nullify his former profession and to be baptized for the remission of sins, is, indeed, to paganize all immersed persons, and to place the world, the whole world, Jew, Gentile and Christian, just as it was on the day of Pentecost. (AC, "Reply," MH, 1835)

We have always preached that "he that believes the gospel and is immersed shall be saved." If, then, we must erect a new tribunal to determine the true believers, and the true gospel, and the true baptism, before admission to the Lord's table, we ought to abandon the no-creed system, and make the christian immersion a church business and have a vote in the church on all the "candidates for immersion."

But I oppose this whole course of procedure, because it is alien to the reformation;--the Bible alone system--and is in fact building again the things which we have been pulling down. It is turning away the ears of the people from the gospel to debates about words. . . (AC, "The Apostolic Advocate," MH, May, 1836)

During the controversy with Dr. John Thomas, a British Stone-Campbell evangelist who in the 1830s began teaching that baptisms performed in Baptist churches or otherwise without a specific understanding of remission of sins were invalid, necessetating rebaptism, Campbell rejected the idea and urged Thomas to stop creating dissention with his teaching. Thomas steadfastly refused and Campbell eventually urged for his being disfellowshipped.

David Lipscomb and J W McGarvey agreed with Campbell:

Commenting on his own immersion in a GA article of 1883, Lipscomb recalled:

"I was baptized quite young by Brother [Tolbert] Fanning. He asked me why I wished to be baptized. I responded "to obey God." He explained it was to bring me into a condition that God would forgive me and accept me as a child of God. I responded, "I wish to be baptized to obey God." I have studied the question for forty years, and I do not yet know how to improve the answer I made."

Lipscomb was sometimes asked what one must believe to be saved. Jesus said in MarK 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." What was it that a person ought to believe in order to be saved? Obviously, thought Lipscomb, a person had to believe that Jesus was the risen Savior. Yet, the rebaptists were also contending that one also had to believe that baptism was for the remission of sins. Lipscomb argued that such a contention was tantamount to adding to the Word of God. He could find nowhere where it was stated that to be saved one must believe that baptism is for the remission of sins. If one must believe that baptism is for the remission of sins, and that one was being baptized for that specific purpose, then it would appear that a preacher would find it necessary to explain these facts prior to performing the act. Yet there was no example of such an interrogation in the New Testament.

Lipscomb insisted that the expression "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38 was not part of the command. If it were, then there would have been some problem in explaining the design for that command. If "be baptized for the remission of sins" is the command, then how could "for the remission of sins" be the design? Obviously, "be baptized for the remission of sins for the remission of sins" is nonsense.

Lipscomb stated:

"To be baptized for the remission of sins as the only design-that is, if we do it, moved only by the desire of securing the remission of sins, the design is a wholly selfish one. I do not believe that men baptized by a design purely selfish are acceptably baptized."

McGarvey agreed:

"As for the design of immersion, which expression means merely the blessing promised to those who are immersed, it involves no duty either of the immerser or of the immersed. It belongs to God and not to man."

From, Jerry Gross, "The Rebaptism Controversy Among Churches of Christ," in Baptism and the Remission of Sins: An Historical Perspective, ed. by David W. Fletcher, pp. 300-312.


Pax.

[s1n4m1n]

It seems that  A. Campbell's understanding of baptism didn't include remission of sins in 1824. In the Campbell-Walker debate Campbell mocks that belief of the early Church Fathers on the matter.

I'm not sure how that fits in with everything.

[DCR]

It seems that  A. Campbell's understanding of baptism didn't include remission of sins in 1824. In the Campbell-Walker debate Campbell mocks that belief of the early Church Fathers on the matter.

I'm not sure how that fits in with everything.

Must've been during his Baptist days. 

That is interesting though.  Any quotes or links?  I can always Google it later if not.

[Lee Freeman]

Even after Campbell discovered the doctrine of remission of sins he was still never rebaptized. In his response to Broaddus he uses the illustration of an immigrant who becomes an American citizen but doesn't discover that his becoming a citizen gives him the right to vote. Does our immigrant have to go through the naturalization process again merely to obtain the right to vote? Of course not. Neither do Christians have to be rebaptized in order to attain the remission of sins. God remits sins at baptism irrespective of whether the person baptized is aware of that or not.

Pax.

[HRoberson]

And yet, DCR, if I expressed faith that somehow I would experience God's grace in some way and somehow vaguely have a notion that it's related in some way to baptism, is there an RM church that would allow me to go forward for baptism?

What if I just said, I want to be baptized?  Would that suffice?  If someone asked me why, what is necessary to demonstrate my "faith"?  In any RM church it would be knowledge.

Or, even worse, what if I said I wanted to be baptized, and my only reason was that because Jesus said to.  What if someone asked me my beliefs about baptism and I denied Acts 2:38, I denied that in baptism I received forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit?  What if I said simply, I only want to be baptized because I want to follow Jesus and Jesus said to do it.  I don't think it does anything at all except get me wet, but I trust Jesus and Jesus said do it, so I want to do it.  Would any RM church baptize me?

I probably would.

I say probably not because I think you need to pass a test, but because, to my thinking, there are so many other wonders that accompany the response. You needn't get it right, but I'd want to tell you.

Wanting to obey God is usually a pretty good reason to do just about anything.

[sopranette]

I have a question that I do not really know how to answer to where it satisfies everyone so I will ask it here and maybe someone can give a satisfactory answer that all can accept.

If Christ said that we are to if we do not is our faith where it should be? If we do not would it not be considered rebellion against Christ will?

That would be exactly what Baptists believe. That is what I understood about Baptism when I was baptized.  But there are many people who are physically unable to be fully immersed.  Are they not saved through repentance and faith as well?

love,

sopranette

[CDHealy]

Now to your question: faith in a person does not require knowledge with regard to doctrine.

Fundamentally speaking, I must disagree with this.  Now, when we say "knowledge with regard to doctrine," that leaves much to the imagination.  There are certainly degrees of knowledge with regard to doctrine.  And, doctrine ranges everywhere between the simple and the complex.  Everything from deep theological concepts that require years to grasp... to a simple "There is a God"... is doctrine.  I can hold to the simple doctrine of "There is a God" and without knowing about anything else doctrinally speaking, I now have a foundation for faith... a starting place for faith, if you will.  But, faith starts with some knowledge of or belief in something... even if it's the simplest knowledge possible.

I'm not sure you can equate knowledge with doctrine.  Knowledge is quite broad, doctrine is quite narrow.  Not all knowledge is doctrine.

Nor is all knowledge discursive knowledge.  Adam's "knowing" his wife, Eve, is knowledge, but not of an analytic sort.  As Aristotle long ago pointed out, there are various types of knowledge related to various types of ends: knowledge about production, knowledge of universals, knowledge of pragmatic ends, and so on.

In all the passages regarding children, Jesus says our faith is to be as that of a child.  Children do not come to analytic abilities for many years after their birth.  They have knowledge, yes, but it is not doctrinal knowledge.

Take infants.  Does an infant trust it's mother and father to provide for its needs?  Of course it does.  If it didn't it would die within hours.  Is that trust cognitive?  Depends upon what you mean by cognitive.  It certainly isn't analytic or verbal.  But it is a trust.  There is a bond and a connection.  And it doesn't even require a genetic component.  Adopted infants exhibit the same trust to non-genetically related parents.

Let's go with this analogy for a moment.  An infant certainly trusts his parents to provide for his needs.  But, I submit that he would not without first "knowing" or having knowledge of his parents.  Yes, an infant trusts his mother.  That's because he knows his mother since he has seen his mother and has personally experienced her presence.  So, he therefore has "knowledge" of her.  But, that infant doesn't trust someone he knows nothing about.  How can an infant trust someone he has never seen or else been made aware of the unknown person's existence?  Do we trust someone who we don't even know exists?  Of course not.  The infant knows his parents exist because he has seen them and has experienced being cared for by them.  The infant "learns" (attains knowledge) of who his parents are.  So, he comes to trust them.

But, does an infant know about God?

An infant trusts apart from learning.  An infant has not developed an ability to learn.  Even the nursing/sucking response is instinctive.  Lay an infant on its mothers chest and it will make its way to the breast to nurse.  It has no previous experience from which to learn this.  But it nonetheless has an innate ability to trust that nourishment will be available, and that by divinely created inherent capacities, it moves toward that sustenance.  If it did not have some level of trust, it would not seek food and nourishment.

Even if one wants to wave this away as one of the perhaps only instincts infants are born with, the fact remains that infants are absolutely dependent upon their parents, and very quickly respond to environments which rewards their trust and those which don't.  Without revealing details, I know a mother whose then not-yet-ten-month-old child stopped nursing very abruptly.  The child would make noises and motions as though wanting to nurse, and then, having begun nursing, would cause pain to the mother.  At the time this happened, the mother had taken actions that disrupted the entire child's life, caused family discord and separation and so forth.  At ten month's old, a child has almost zero analytical abilities, let alone the capacitiy for discursive reason.  But the child also recognized that it was in an environment that was chaotic, disrupted (and probably receiving similar emotional signals from the mother), and "lost trust" in the mother and the living situation and so reacted with the sort of negative reaction it could give.

I have no way of knowing the answer to that question with certainty.  However, it seems reasonable that any "typical" infant would be ignorant of God without first knowing something about God.  An infant is certainly not ignorant of his parents since he sees them with his own eyes... learns who they are and then comes to trust them.  But, unless infants are somehow imparted some knowledge of God, I don't see how they can have "faith" in someone they have no way of knowing about under normal circumstances.

At some point, perhaps as the child reaches the age of a toddler and begins to understand language and our ability to explain certain simple concepts, there will come a time when we tell the child about God.  Think of something simple you might tell a child... "Little Timmy, did you know there's a place called Heaven, and God is there?  And, did you know that He made us?  He made everything in the world!  God made you, mommy, and daddy, and everyone else in the world!"

At that point, little Timmy may give a blank stare with his wondering eyes, for the first time beginning to ponder that there is something and someone else out there who he can't see with his own eyes.  A suggestion has been made to his thinking.  And, "knowledge" of God (as simple as it is) is taught to little Timmy for the first time.  Timmy now knows about the existence of God.  It's a very simple knowledge.  But, for the first time, since Timmy "believes" this knowledge that we've taught him, perhaps the spark of faith has begun for him.  Back to the original statement, we have just taught little Timmy "doctrine."  He now has simple knowledge of a basic doctrine.  It may not be much, but it is the beginning of faith.

But I question your assertion that a child doesn't know God.  How would we know that?  A child, particularly the youngest children, cannot articulate what it does and doesn't know.  My five year old has much more in her head to say to me, but lacks the vocabularly to say it.  She is a little chatterbox, and also has a fairly large vocabularly for her age, and yet she'll attempt to describe something to me, but not have the words to articulate it.

How can we believe that adults know a God they have never seen?  I have never had any direct experience of God--so far as I can inerrantly discern.  All my religious experiences have come through "feelings," and events without other adequate explanation.  But does that necessarily mean they are God or from God?  How does one know?  Just because I feel a certain way it doesn't necessarily follow that that feeling originated in God.  If I come to believe that a certain experience was God or from God I necessarily do so on the basis of faith, not of knowledge.

If this is true of adults, it's also true of children.

I doubt there can be any faith without, at a minimum, a basic acceptance and cognition of at least some simple suggestion communicated, with regard to God or anything else.  Other than that, faith and trust is only possible when one directly experiences the one he puts his trust in.

Without either direct experience of the object of faith or else the acceptance of someone else's word with regard to the object of faith, there is only ignorance.  The one who doesn't "know about" God can only be oblivious to God, to say nothing about having "faith" in God.

I completely disagree with this.  I believe that almost everyone first believes or exercises faith in God and only after does he realize that a past experience, or experiences post the point of initial faith, were of God or from God.  God first reveals himself.  Otherwise we cannot know him.

My own experience was this way.  I had no discernible experience of God that I have any recollection of until I was about seven and a half.  Yes, I had grown up in a Christian home, and knew the words and the vocabularly.  But no experience.  A handful of days prior to my baptism, I had an experience laying awake waiting to fall asleep where a very "audible" thought came to my mind, "You need to be baptized."  To this day, I have no evidence or proof that that inner voice was of God or just one of my subconscious thoughts bubbling to the surface.  I have no recollection at the time of thinking that those inner words were of God.  Only in retrospect do I even suspect it was perhaps God communicating to me.

And that is my point.  Faith precedes knowledge.

An infants trusts prior to any capacity for knowledge.  Any knowledge of God has to first start from the belief that God even exists, which belief itself isn't knowledge, but belief.

[DCR]

Now to your question: faith in a person does not require knowledge with regard to doctrine.

Fundamentally speaking, I must disagree with this.  Now, when we say "knowledge with regard to doctrine," that leaves much to the imagination.  There are certainly degrees of knowledge with regard to doctrine.  And, doctrine ranges everywhere between the simple and the complex.  Everything from deep theological concepts that require years to grasp... to a simple "There is a God"... is doctrine.  I can hold to the simple doctrine of "There is a God" and without knowing about anything else doctrinally speaking, I now have a foundation for faith... a starting place for faith, if you will.  But, faith starts with some knowledge of or belief in something... even if it's the simplest knowledge possible.

I'm not sure you can equate knowledge with doctrine.  Knowledge is quite broad, doctrine is quite narrow.  Not all knowledge is doctrine.

I don't equate knowledge with doctrine.  Knowledge is broad and seems to encompass both retention of information as well as recognition and/or memory of persons, places, things, and ideas.  Doctrine is simply teaching.  But, a creed as simple as "There is a God" is doctrine.  Not all knowledge may be doctrine per se.  However, knowledge includes the retention of doctrine.  But, my point is that a child most likely (in other words, of natural means) is not aware of God until we "teach" him the simple doctrine of "There is a God."  Without an "awareness" of someone or something, faith is not possible, in my opinion.  I'm extremely doubtful that a child is "aware" of the concept of God until we introduce the concept of God to him.

Nor is all knowledge discursive knowledge.  Adam's "knowing" his wife, Eve, is knowledge, but not of an analytic sort.  As Aristotle long ago pointed out, there are various types of knowledge related to various types of ends: knowledge about production, knowledge of universals, knowledge of pragmatic ends, and so on.

In all the passages regarding children, Jesus says our faith is to be as that of a child.  Children do not come to analytic abilities for many years after their birth.  They have knowledge, yes, but it is not doctrinal knowledge.

Take infants.  Does an infant trust it's mother and father to provide for its needs?  Of course it does.  If it didn't it would die within hours.  Is that trust cognitive?  Depends upon what you mean by cognitive.  It certainly isn't analytic or verbal.  But it is a trust.  There is a bond and a connection.  And it doesn't even require a genetic component.  Adopted infants exhibit the same trust to non-genetically related parents.

Let's go with this analogy for a moment.  An infant certainly trusts his parents to provide for his needs.  But, I submit that he would not without first "knowing" or having knowledge of his parents.  Yes, an infant trusts his mother.  That's because he knows his mother since he has seen his mother and has personally experienced her presence.  So, he therefore has "knowledge" of her.  But, that infant doesn't trust someone he knows nothing about.  How can an infant trust someone he has never seen or else been made aware of the unknown person's existence?  Do we trust someone who we don't even know exists?  Of course not.  The infant knows his parents exist because he has seen them and has experienced being cared for by them.  The infant "learns" (attains knowledge) of who his parents are.  So, he comes to trust them.

But, does an infant know about God?

An infant trusts apart from learning.  An infant has not developed an ability to learn.  Even the nursing/sucking response is instinctive.  Lay an infant on its mothers chest and it will make its way to the breast to nurse.  It has no previous experience from which to learn this.  But it nonetheless has an innate ability to trust that nourishment will be available, and that by divinely created inherent capacities, it moves toward that sustenance.  If it did not have some level of trust, it would not seek food and nourishment.

Even if one wants to wave this away as one of the perhaps only instincts infants are born with, the fact remains that infants are absolutely dependent upon their parents, and very quickly respond to environments which rewards their trust and those which don't.  Without revealing details, I know a mother whose then not-yet-ten-month-old child stopped nursing very abruptly.  The child would make noises and motions as though wanting to nurse, and then, having begun nursing, would cause pain to the mother.  At the time this happened, the mother had taken actions that disrupted the entire child's life, caused family discord and separation and so forth.  At ten month's old, a child has almost zero analytical abilities, let alone the capacitiy for discursive reason.  But the child also recognized that it was in an environment that was chaotic, disrupted (and probably receiving similar emotional signals from the mother), and "lost trust" in the mother and the living situation and so reacted with the sort of negative reaction it could give.

But, see, this actually demonstrates the point of where I'm coming from.  You just used a word there... "recognized." 

So, the child's "re-cognition" of issues in his environment has bearing on his trust in the situation.  That in itself is a function of his mind, memory, and awareness, which are all functions of knowledge.  Recognition is a function of knowledge.  Of course, this kind of knowledge is empirical in nature.  It is driven by what the child has witnessed and experienced... what the child has "learned" from the situation.  Whatever the child sensed and witnessed in that situation was recorded in his "knowledge bank."  Recognition of anything is simply the identification and association of something with one's knowledge of that particular thing.  At any rate, these are all functions of the mind.  Without some sort of knowledge, awareness, or recognition of someone, trust (or loss of trust for that matter) is not possible.

I have no way of knowing the answer to that question with certainty.  However, it seems reasonable that any "typical" infant would be ignorant of God without first knowing something about God.  An infant is certainly not ignorant of his parents since he sees them with his own eyes... learns who they are and then comes to trust them.  But, unless infants are somehow imparted some knowledge of God, I don't see how they can have "faith" in someone they have no way of knowing about under normal circumstances.

At some point, perhaps as the child reaches the age of a toddler and begins to understand language and our ability to explain certain simple concepts, there will come a time when we tell the child about God.  Think of something simple you might tell a child... "Little Timmy, did you know there's a place called Heaven, and God is there?  And, did you know that He made us?  He made everything in the world!  God made you, mommy, and daddy, and everyone else in the world!"

At that point, little Timmy may give a blank stare with his wondering eyes, for the first time beginning to ponder that there is something and someone else out there who he can't see with his own eyes.  A suggestion has been made to his thinking.  And, "knowledge" of God (as simple as it is) is taught to little Timmy for the first time.  Timmy now knows about the existence of God.  It's a very simple knowledge.  But, for the first time, since Timmy "believes" this knowledge that we've taught him, perhaps the spark of faith has begun for him.  Back to the original statement, we have just taught little Timmy "doctrine."  He now has simple knowledge of a basic doctrine.  It may not be much, but it is the beginning of faith.

But I question your assertion that a child doesn't know God.  How would we know that?

We don't know that.  But, neither can you assert that the child does know God.  How would we know that?  This is mere speculation one way or the other.  But, the most likely case, short of supernatural or divine revelation, is that the child probably doesn't know God or have an awareness of the concept of God.  Otherwise, we would have to say that all children are born with the concept of God implanted in their minds.  Could such a thing be possible?  I suppose.  But, I know of nothing that suggests that as a truth.  But, on the contrary, there are Scriptures that seem to argue against it (see Romans 10:14-17 below).  It seems that all concepts within one's knowledge are initially learned at some point.

A child, particularly the youngest children, cannot articulate what it does and doesn't know.  My five year old has much more in her head to say to me, but lacks the vocabularly to say it.  She is a little chatterbox, and also has a fairly large vocabularly for her age, and yet she'll attempt to describe something to me, but not have the words to articulate it.

How can we believe that adults know a God they have never seen?  I have never had any direct experience of God--so far as I can inerrantly discern.  All my religious experiences have come through "feelings," and events without other adequate explanation.  But does that necessarily mean they are God or from God?  How does one know?  Just because I feel a certain way it doesn't necessarily follow that that feeling originated in God.  If I come to believe that a certain experience was God or from God I necessarily do so on the basis of faith, not of knowledge.

If this is true of adults, it's also true of children.

But, I believe whatever concept adults have of God was learned at some point... quite possibly when they were children.  I suspect my concept of God began to form from very early teachings about God when I was three or four years of age in some sort of Sunday school setting if not at home.  Before those teachings that there was a God, I suspect I was oblivious to the concept of God.  It is not possible to have faith without at least some basic awareness or recognition of someone or the concept of someone.  This is the main point that I have been trying to make here.

I doubt there can be any faith without, at a minimum, a basic acceptance and cognition of at least some simple suggestion communicated, with regard to God or anything else.  Other than that, faith and trust is only possible when one directly experiences the one he puts his trust in.

Without either direct experience of the object of faith or else the acceptance of someone else's word with regard to the object of faith, there is only ignorance.  The one who doesn't "know about" God can only be oblivious to God, to say nothing about having "faith" in God.

I completely disagree with this.  I believe that almost everyone first believes or exercises faith in God and only after does he realize that a past experience, or experiences post the point of initial faith, were of God or from God.  God first reveals himself.  Otherwise we cannot know him.

My own experience was this way.  I had no discernible experience of God that I have any recollection of until I was about seven and a half.  Yes, I had grown up in a Christian home, and knew the words and the vocabularly.  But no experience.  A handful of days prior to my baptism, I had an experience laying awake waiting to fall asleep where a very "audible" thought came to my mind, "You need to be baptized."  To this day, I have no evidence or proof that that inner voice was of God or just one of my subconscious thoughts bubbling to the surface.  I have no recollection at the time of thinking that those inner words were of God.  Only in retrospect do I even suspect it was perhaps God communicating to me.

And that is my point.  Faith precedes knowledge.

An infants trusts prior to any capacity for knowledge.  Any knowledge of God has to first start from the belief that God even exists, which belief itself isn't knowledge, but belief.

I have to disagree with your assessment that faith precedes knowledge.  Your personal experience... would that have happened had you not first been taught about God, baptism, and the rest of it?  You had knowledge of those things.  Perhaps, you only "knew the words and the vocabulary."  But, that's still knowledge, my friend.  Even you can't get around the fact that you "knew" some things.  Whatever the nature was of your experience, some basic knowledge preceded it.  You couldn't have had that experience or come to that point of faith without first being taught the knowledge of certain things.  The only possible exception to that would have to be some sort of miraculous divine revelation, if one were to suddenly become aware and convicted of something from a voice or experience without first learning of it through natural means.

Just to reiterate a basic, common-sense axiom that's stated in Scripture...

Romans 10
 14How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?  15How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!"  16However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" 
17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

[Livelysword]

Jimmy:

If it "may be true of one or more individuals," then it *does* have a basis in fact.

In point of fact, I grew up in MOR Restoration Movement churches, went to school at Ozark, and while no one would explicitly identify faith with knowledge, once you dug into the arguments it was pretty clear that in point of practice, the two were identical.

I refer you to DCRs comments above.

Again you generalized unfairly and inappropriately.  Based upon some of your earlier posts here at the forum, I might guess that you would be one of the first to severely object to any similar generalization about Orthodox religion. But to your point, do you believe that one can have faith in Jesus Christ without a knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  I don't.  There is no faith Jesus without knowing at least some of the rudimentary details of the Gospel of Jesus.  DCR's reference to Romans 10 was quite in order.

Lively:  I would buy a sack of that Jimmy... Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God... plain and simple...