Posted on 03/07/2015 12:04:48 PM PST by Colofornian
Should we baptize babies? The Christian Church continues to be sharply divided over this important question. Those who answer "yes" (Lutherans, Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc.) claim Biblical support for their position. Those who answer "no" (Baptists, Seventh Day Adventists, many "Bible" or "evangelical," or "non-denominational" churches) say the Bible is on their side. The pro-infant baptism churches assert that Christ commanded infant baptism. The opposing side asserts that nowhere is such a thing commanded. They hold that at best it is useless and at worst harmful. It is their practice to rebaptize adults who were baptized as babies.
The Lutheran Church has always taught that baptism is for everyone, including infants. We believe that Jesus wants babies to be baptized. We do so for the following reasons.
Many raise the objection: "There is not a single example of infant baptism in the New Testament, nor is there any command to do so. Therefore Christians should not baptize babies."
But Jesus has commanded infant baptism. In Matthew 28:19 He says, "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit . . .." Before He ascended, the Lord of the Church commanded us to baptize "all nations," a phrase the Church has always understood to mean "everyone." Matthew 25:31-32 also uses the phrase "all nations" in this way. All nations are to be baptized, regardless of race, color, sex, age, class, or education. Jesus makes no exceptions. He doesn't say, "Baptize all nations except . . .." Everyone is to be baptized, including infants. If we say that babies are not to be included in Christ's Great Commission, then where will it stop? What other people will we exclude?
It is true that there is no example in Scripture of a baby being baptized. However, to conclude from this that babies are not to be baptized is absurd. Neither are there any specific examples of the elderly being baptized, or teenagers, or little children. Instead we read about men (Acts 2:41; 8:35) women (Acts 16:14-15), and entire households being baptized (Acts 10:24,47-48; 16:14-15; 16:30-33; 1 Co. 1:16). The authors of the New Testament documents didn't feel compelled to give examples of every age group or category being baptized. Why should they have? Certainly they understood that "all nations" is all-inclusive.
The Bible teaches that infants are born sinful and are in need of forgiveness. Scripture says nothing about an "Age of Accountability" that begins at the age of reason. Its message is that accountability begins at conception. David confesses in Psalm 51:5, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me." The Bible teaches original sin, that the corruption and guilt of Adam's sin is passed on to every human being at conception. Jesus affirms this teaching when He says, "Flesh gives birth to flesh" (John 3:5). Paul takes it up in Romans 5:18: "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
Furthermore, Jesus said, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; he who believes not shall be damned" (Mark 16:16). According to Jesus, ANYONE who does not believe in Him will be damned. Jesus makes no exception for infants. Babies will not be saved without faith in Jesus. Parents who think they are placing their children under God's grace by "dedicating" them are deceiving themselves. The only dedication that the New Testament knows of is the "dedication" that take place via baptism. That is why infants should be baptized. Like everyone else, they desperately need forgiveness. If infants die before they believe in Jesus, they will be eternally condemned. They, like everyone else, need to be baptized so that they can be born again. Jesus said, "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). We believe that baptism is God's special means of grace for children by which He causes them to be born again. To keep them from baptism is to keep them from forgiveness and to endanger them with damnation.
God's covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17:10-14) demanded that every male child was to be circumcised when eight days old. By circumcision, the baby entered into a covenant relationship with the true God.
St. Paul teaches us that in the New Testament baptism has replaced circumcision. "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism . . ." (Col. 2:11-12).
Given this fact, it would have been natural for first century Jewish believers to baptize infants, since they were accustomed to circumcise their male children at eight days old. It is also logical that if God regarded eight day old male babies as members of His covenant people through circumcision, He will also regard newborn babies to be members of His kingdom through baptism, the "circumcision made without hands."
The most frequent objection to infant baptism is that babies cannot believe. They do not, says the objection, have the intellect necessary to repent and believe in Jesus.
If this is your opinion, Jesus disagrees with you. Luke 18 tells us that certain parents were bringing infants (Greek - brephe) to Jesus, that He might bless them. The disciples rebuked those who brought the babies. Jesus' response is well known: "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it" (Luke 18:15-17). Some have objected that it is "little children" and not infants that Jesus speaks of here. Yet the very little children that the disciples were forbidding were infants. The infants are the focus of the passage. Clearly on this occasion Jesus had babies in mind when He said what He did!
Does this passage speak of infant baptism? No, not directly. It does show that Jesus did not raise the objection that so many do today about babies not being able to believe. According to Jesus, these babies had what it took to be members of the kingdom of God, feeble intellect and all! "Do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God."
Now Jesus does not contradict Himself. The central message of His ministry (the Gospel) was that there was only way to enter God's kingdom. There was only one way to be saved. "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). Repeatedly Christ taught that faith in Him was the one way to become a member of God's kingdom (cf. John 3:16-18). Therefore, when He says about babies, "for of such is the kingdom of God," He is telling us that babies can believe (for how else could they enter the kingdom?!).
So if Jesus maintained that babies can believe (though their faith is very simple), who are we to deny it? And who are we to deny baptism to those who can believe? For those still stumbling over infant faith, remember: it is purely by God's grace that any person, adult or child, can believe. Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit as much for the adult as for the child (see John 6:44; 1 Cor. 12:3; Eph. 2:1-4). When the adult believes in Christ it is only because the Holy Spirit, working through the Gospel, has worked the miracle of faith in his heart. So with the infant. If faith, then, is always a miracle, why can we not believe that God would work such miraculous faith in a baby?
Someone might ask, "If babies can believe then why do they need baptism?" Answer: it is through baptism that faith is created in the infant's heart. Baptism, far from being the empty symbolism that many imagine it to be, is the visible Gospel, a powerful means of grace. According to Scripture, baptism "washes away sin" (Acts 22:16), "saves" (1 Peter 3:21; Mark 16:16), causes one to "die to sin, to be buried, and raised up with Christ" (Romans 6:3-4) causes one to be "clothed with Christ" (Galatians 3:27), and to be a member of the body of Christ: "for by one Spirit, were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:13). It bears repeating: baptism is a special means of God's grace by which He gives faith, forgiveness, and salvation to the infant.
Those who deny infant baptism have a problem. They must explain why the fathers of the Church's first centuries speak of infant baptism as a universal custom. The Fathers is what we now call Pastors who led the Church after the death of the apostles. When we examine the writings of Irenaeus (d. 202), Tertullian (d. 240), Origen (d. 254), Cyprian (d. 258), and Augustine (d. 430), we see that they all spoke of infant baptism as accepted custom (though Tertullian disagreed with it).
Irenaeus remarks, "For He came to save all through means of Himself all, I say, who through Him are born again to God, infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men" (Against Heresies, Book 1, Ch. 22.4).
In his commentary on Romans, Origin writes, "The Church has received from the apostles the custom of administering baptism even to infants. For those who have been entrusted with the secrets of divine mysteries, knew very well that all are tainted with the stain of original sin, which must be washed off by water and spirit" (Romans Commentary, 5.9).
Cyprian writes, "In respect of the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man... Spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision... we ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins - that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another" (Letter 58 to Fidus).
And in his Enchiridion, Augustine declares, "For from the infant newly born to the old man bent with age, as there is none shut out from baptism, so there is none who in baptism does not die to sin" (Enchiridion; ch. 43).
For completeness sake, I have listed five reasons why Christians should baptize infants. The first reason should have been enough. Jesus has commanded His Church to "make disciples of all nations baptizing them . . .." Christ made no exceptions. Infants are part of all nations, as are every other age group. We do not have to prove this. The burden of proof is on those who deny that infants are to be included in "all nations." To deny the blessing of infant baptism because you can't find the words "infant baptism" in the Bible makes as much sense as rejecting the teaching of the Trinity because you can't find the words "Trinity" or "triune" in the Bible.
As to babies not being of the age of reason and therefore not able to believe, I have shown that Christ disagrees. So in a sense, the teaching of infant baptism reveals who your Lord is. Lord Jesus Christ has commanded us to baptize all nations, has declared that everyone who dies without faith is damned, and has taught us that infants can believe by God's grace working through baptism. Lord Reason says, "I don't understand how a baby can believe, therefore I reject infant baptism. It makes more sense to me to do it my way." Which Lord will you obey? Will you obey Christ and baptize "all nations," including infants, even though you don't understand it? Or will you obey Reason and reject infant baptism because you don't understand how babies can believe? Which Lord will you obey?
Pastor Richard Bucher, Th.D
I thought that Jewish circumcision came 8 days after birth?
If my memory is correct, years ago, when the Rev. Billy Graham used to preach around the world, he would end or someone would end the presentation with the directive to join up with a church after you made your decision for Christ.
....And the Bible did say that “whole households” were baptized. So that had to include little babies and small children.
“If we take your counsel — and other credobaptists, then for all we know, nobody under 25 was ever baptized because the Bible is silent on age — and therefore nobody under 25 should ever be baptized.”
“Tell us where the “belief” verses are about the rest of his household? (Go ahead, list them for us)”
While the Bible is silent about exact ages, it is not silent about belief. Believing IS a requirement. That is why we are often referred to as “believers”. There are roughly 500 verses in the New Testament alone that cover the requirement to believe.
It is not open to debate. It is EXCRUCIATINGLY CLEAR that faith and believing are requirements to become ‘believers’!
If someone has not believed, they cannot be “in Christ”. They are not part of the body of Christ.
So why would ANYONE want to baptize an infant? What do they think it is going to do? Is it a magical ritual, per Simon Magus?
Your post 119 is telling. You deny belief is required for salvation. You deny the entire New Testament to justify your belief.
“Finally, most credobaptist groups have created “baby dedications.” The Bible is silent on ANY age kid-dedications, let alone baby ones... “
Having sat thru many, the point of the dedication is for the ADULTS to pledge themselves to teaching the child about God. It does not, in any way, mean the child is blessed or changed or promised anything by God.
#1 The way Jesus described it is (a) babies "come unto" Him; and (b) "Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”
Here's the context:
15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” (Luke 18)
#2 Even were I to be able to convince you that to little children "such belong the kingdom of God" (or face Jesus' rebuke to stop hindering them from coming unto Him)...
...even if I could convince you that...
...pre-schoolers can "believe"...
...kinderkids can "believe"...
...primary-aged kids can "believe"...
...you know what?
...People who are steadfast against these little children won't baptize them either!
So "belief" here is just a smokescreen.
It isn't the real demarcation.
Because even if I could convince you these children above can "believe," the likelihood is that your church -- or thousands of other churches in this nation -- still won't baptize them! (Which means many churches deserve the rebuke given them in Luke 18)
So direct questions here:
Would your church baptize a pre-schooler?
Would your church baptize a kinderkid?
Would your church baptize a first grader?
(& for many churches, would that church baptize a 2nd grader whose 7?)
If not, are you thereby announcing to the world, that "no," these-aged kids can't believe?
Are you claiming that these-aged kids don't fit into Jesus' definition of eternal life?
3 Now this is eternal life: that they KNOW you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." (John 17:3)
(and note: "knowing" doesn't = DEEP cognitive development)
And also, what's your stance on mental retardation (beyond mild retardation)?
Do you claim they can't "believe" also -- those whose mental development is say, 7 yrs old & younger?
And where do find your Biblical standard for a non-existent "age of accountability?"
Where is that found in the Bible?
Are you telling me that if you've been a parent, you don't hold your 7 & younger aged kids accountable?
Are you saying there was no sin present in their lives that Jesus' blood covered, or needed to be?
First of all, your bloggers are incompetent. This one, for example, cites this quotation to prove that Augustine denies the Final Preserverence of the Elect:
"I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling. Therefore it is uncertain whether any one has received this gift so long as he is still alive. For if he fall before he dies, he is, of course, said not to have persevered; and most truly is it said." (On The Gift Of Perseverance)
But the fool does not realize that Augustine here calls Perseverance to be a "gift of God." And if it is a "gift," that means it is given gratuitously, by Augustine's own definition-- that is, not because of our faithfulness or our good works, but by the unmerited grace of God. According to Augustine, since he held to baptismal regeneration, people who were regenerated could lose their salvation; but Augustine is also a Monergist (which is what Calvinism is built on!), and thus whether a person falls away or not depends on whether or not God upholds them by grace. Thus, according to Augustine, the Elect of God can never lose their salvation; nor can anyone lose their salvation because they resisted effectual grace, but, rather, they lose their salvation because they are not given grace at all.
"... the human will does not obtain grace by freedom, but obtains freedom by grace; when the feeling of delight has been imparted through. the same grace, the human will is formed to endure; it is strengthened with unconquerable fortitude; controlled by grace, it never will perish, but, if grace forsake it, it will straightway fall; by the Lord's free mercy it is converted to good, and once converted it perseveres in good; the direction of the human will toward good, and after direction its continuation in good, depend solely upon God's will, not upon any merit of man. Thus there is left to man such free will, if we please so to call it, as he elsewhere describes: that except through grace the will can neither be converted to God nor abide in God; and whatever it can do it is able to do only through grace. "(Augustine, Aurelius. Augustine's Writings on Grace and Free WIll (Kindle Locations 45-46). Monergism Books. Kindle Edition.)
“But of such as these [the Elect] none perishes, because of all that the Father has given Him, He will lose none. John 6:39 Whoever, therefore, is of these does not perish at all; nor was any who perishes ever of these. For which reason it is said, They went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would certainly have continued with us. 1 John 2:19”. (Augustine, Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints) “I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling.” (Augustine, On the Perseverance of the Saints)
"But you write that "these brethren will not have this perseverance so preached as that it cannot be obtained by prayer or lost by obstinacy." In this they are little careful in considering what they say. For we are speaking of that perseverance whereby one perseveres unto the end, and if this is given, one does persevere unto the end; but if one does not persevere unto the end, it is not given, which I have already sufficiently discussed above. (Ibid, Ch. 11)
"Will any one dare to say that this perseverance is not the gift of God, and that so great a possession as this is ours in such wise that if any one have it the apostle could not say to him, 'For what hast thou which thou hast not received?'[ 2] since he has this in such a manner as that he has not received it?" To this, indeed, we are not able to deny, that perseverance in good, progressing even to the end, is also a great gift of God; and that it exists not save it come from Him of whom it is written, "Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights." (Augustine, Treatise on Rebuke and Grace, Ch. 10)
Your other bloggers make the same mistake for some odd reason, I suspect more out of laziness than malice. Your "protestant" blogger also makes the very weird assertion:
The Augustinian definition of double predestination, at least as explained by later writers, is not Calvinistic. Augustine himself did not focus much on the double aspect of predestination and explain what the predestination of the reprobate means. However, the later Augustinian tradition as developed by Prosper of Aquitaine, Fulgentius of Ruspe, and ultimately the Council of Orange, when defining double predestination always made the point that when men are predestined unto death, they are only predestined based upon foreseen future demerits.
Now, who cares what "later Augustinian" writers have to say about it (though this fool does not even consider them all, just as Jansen or others). Augustine did not believe reprobation or predestination was based on "foreseen merits", but explicitly denies this:
“And, moreover, who will be so foolish and blasphemous as to say that God cannot change the evil wills of men, whichever, whenever, and wheresoever He chooses, and direct them to what is good? But when He does this He does it of mercy; when He does it not, it is of justice that He does it not for “He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens.” And when the apostle said this, he was illustrating the grace of God, in connection with which he had just spoken of the twins in the womb of Rebecca, who “being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calls, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.” And in reference to this matter he quotes another prophetic testimony: “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” But perceiving how what he had said might affect those who could not penetrate by their understanding the depth of this grace: “What shall we say then?” he says: “Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” For it seems unjust that, in the absence of any merit or demerit, from good or evil works, God should love the one and hate the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there were future good works of the one, and evil works of the other, which of course God foreknew, he would never have said, not of works, but, of future works, and in that way would have solved the difficulty, or rather there would then have been no difficulty to solve. As it is, however, after answering, God forbid; that is, God forbid that there should be unrighteousness with God; he goes on to prove that there is no unrighteousness in God’s doing this, and says: “For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” “ (Augustine, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Chapter 98. Predestination to Eternal Life is Wholly of God’s Free Grace.)
Augustine also explicitly contradicts your modern day Popes on the subject of universal grace. For example, compare how your Popes deal with the interpretation of 1 Tim 2:4, and then read Augustine's take:
"In the New Testament, the universal salvific will of God is closely connected to the sole mediation of Christ: '[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for all' (1 Tim 2:4-6)." (Cardinal Ratzinger, Dominus Jesus, n. 13)
"Vatican II adds that the Church is 'a sacrament. . . of the unity of all mankind.' [Lumen Gentium, n. 1] Obviously it is a question of the unity -- which the human race which in itself is differentiated in various ways -- has from God and in God. This unity has its roots in the mystery of creation and acquires a new dimension in the mystery of the Redemption, which is ordered to universal salvation. Since God 'wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,' [1 Tim 2:4] the Redemption includes all humanity and in a certain way all of creation. In the same universal dimension of Redemption the Holy Spirit is acting, by virtue of the 'departure of Christ.' Therefore the Church, rooted through her own mystery in the Trinitarian plan of salvation with good reason regards herself as the 'sacrament of the unity of the whole human race.' She knows that she is such through the power of the Holy Spirit, of which power she is a sign and instrument in the fulfillment of God's salvific plan." (Pope John Paul II, Dominum et Vivificantem, n. 64)
Now read Augustine:
“Or, it is said, “Who will have all men to be saved;” not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will (for how, then, explain the fact that He was unwilling to work miracles in the presence of some who, He said, would have repented if He had worked them?), but that we are to understand by “all men,” the human race in all its varieties of rank and circumstances,—kings, subjects; noble, plebeian, high, low, learned, and unlearned; the sound in body, the feeble, the clever, the dull, the foolish, the rich, the poor, and those of middling circumstances; males, females, infants, boys, youths; young, middle-aged, and old men; of every tongue, of every fashion, of all arts, of all professions, with all the innumerable differences of will and conscience, and whatever else there is that makes a distinction among men. For which of all these classes is there out of which God does not will that men should be saved in all nations through His only-begotten Son, our Lord, and therefore does save them; for the Omnipotent cannot will in vain, whatsoever He may will? Now the apostle had enjoined that prayers should be made for all men, and had especially added, “For kings, and for all that are in authority,” who might be supposed, in the pride and pomp of worldly station, to shrink from the humility of the Christian faith. Then saying, “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour,” that is, that prayers should be made for such as these, he immediately adds, as if to remove any ground of despair, “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” [I Tim. 2:1-4]. God, then, in His great condescension has judged it good to grant to the prayers of the humble the salvation of the exalted; and assuredly we have many examples of this. Our Lord, too, makes use of the same mode of speech in the Gospel, when He says to the Pharisees: “Ye tithe mint, and rue, and every herb” [Luke 11:42]. For the Pharisees did not tithe what belonged to others, nor all the herbs of all the inhabitants of other lands. As, then, in this place we must understand by “every herb,” every kind of herbs, so in the former passage we may understand by “all men,” every sort of men. And we may interpret it in any other way we please, so long as we are not compelled to believe that the omnipotent God has willed anything to be done which was not done: for setting aside all ambiguities, if “He hath done all that He pleased in heaven and in earth” [Ps. 115:3]. as the psalmist sings of Him, He certainly did not will to do anything that He hath not done.” (Augustine, Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Ch. 103. Interpretation of the Expression in I Tim. 2:4: “Who Will Have All Men to Be Saved”.)
This is also exactly the Calvinistic interpretation of this same verse.
Your links have a whole lot of other claims in them that would take too long for me to sort out. However, I think this is good enough to demonstrate that Augustine was a Monergist, and therefore was in opposition to Romanist Synergism/works-righteousness.
“So “belief” here is just a smokescreen. / It isn’t the real demarcation. “
Not hardly.
First, water baptism saves no one from their sin. It has value, but it is not in any way connected with placing someone in the body of Christ.
Second, apart from faith, there IS no conversion. There is no salvation apart from faith, and there is no justification for baptizing the unsaved.
“15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” (Luke 18) “
Notice they brought the infants to be blessed, and prayed for, but not for baptism. We would pray for babies, but we would not baptize them - and the same was true of Jesus.
“So direct questions here:
Would your church baptize a pre-schooler?
Would your church baptize a kinderkid?
Would your church baptize a first grader?
(& for many churches, would that church baptize a 2nd grader whose 7?)”
Answers to all: it depends on the child. Can they give some indication they know Jesus and believe? If yes, then they can be baptized. If no, then they cannot. And if one believes before we are ready to baptize, then he has already been saved:
” Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
Why do you insist on formulas? Why do you insist water baptism is needed for salvation, or can save the soul of an unbeliever? Why do you deny the 500 verses about faith and belief? Why do you insist an unbeliever can be a believer, if he is just sprinkled with water? Is it magic?
Give some scriptural evidence that God honors the water baptism of an unbeliever.
Do you make decisions for your children until they reach the age of reason?
I'll ask you also. Did you make decisions for your children before they reached the age of reason?
What was circumcision for? Reference Genesis 17:12-14.
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Act 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
Act 16:34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.
Not a baby in the bunch...
We already know Jesus said to make disciples of all nations (all ethnic groups). So, actually, you're the one attempting to form a pool of exclusion where none is.
Mat_28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Jesus DID NOT say to teach every breathing human in every nation...He said teach all NATIONS...If one person in each Nation was taught, the command is fulfilled...
So, having arrived at that basic understanding, when we look at the multiple "whole household" passages, both sides "presume": It's NOT that one side presumes & the other doesn't, both presume.
Nope...ALL in all housholds believed before baptism EXCEPT in the case of Lydia...And yet there is language there that makes one lean that way...
Doesn't matter...There is not a single case in the scripture where an individual of any age is baptized without first believing...It's cut and dried...No argument...
Secondly, NO age of anybody -- adult, teen, pre-teen, primary, Kind., pre-school, toddler, infant -- is EVER given in Scripture.
If we take your counsel -- and other credobaptists, then for all we know, nobody under 25 was ever baptized because the Bible is silent on age -- and therefore nobody under 25 should ever be baptized.
It's already been pointed out that until a person understands what sin is, there is no sin committed...Therefore no penalty for sin...God determines when that age hits a person...
Repentance is an ONGOING part of life for EVERY Christian.
In my and many others' definition of repent, repent means to change one's mind, to turn to Jesus...
But regardless of the correct definition, all are commanded to repent (those who are under sin)...No repentance, no baptism...And repentance under that definition is required only once...
“What was circumcision for? Reference Genesis 17:12-14.”
Circumcision was the right that marked the person as an Israelite - which status he had at birth. It marked them as members of the Old Covenant.
Water baptism is the rite of passage that marks one as born again in Christ, and it happens after the second birth. It marks us as under the New Covenant.
Unlike birth into Israel, no infant has experienced the second birth required for entering the Kingdom of Heaven. We baptize infant Christians, but we do not baptize non-christian infants, so to speak. One cannot become an “infant Christian” without believing.
Infant baptism is like trying to circumcise someone who is still in the womb.
Just as physical birth is required for circumcision, spiritual birth is required for water baptism.
“Do you make decisions for your children until they reach the age of reason?”
Yes, where possible. I cannot decide for them to repent and believe, which is the requirement to become a believer...
I’ll add this: If I could make the decision for others to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, I would do so for ALL. But no one can make that decision for another. I cannot repent and believe on behalf of my wife, nor can I do so for an infant anywhere.
I can, as head of the household, decide my house will be run on the principles of God. In that sense, I CAN save my entire household - in the sense of sanctification (separation from the world):
“If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”
But that talks of sanctification, not justification - and it may well be the context that talks about an entire household being “saved”. Justification is required for someone to become a citizen of Heaven, to board the SS Jesus and take a cruise whose destination is to be conformed to the likeness of Christ. But you can be made different (separate / holy) by the decision of another to have his home abide by different principles.
As noted in Acts 16:
“And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.”
His household rejoiced that he had believed...
So too would baptism mark infants as members of the New Covenant under to covering of parents as it was with the Israelites under the Old Covenant.
>>Yes, where possible. I cannot decide for them to repent and believe, which is the requirement to become a believer...<<
Children are under the covering of the believing parents until the age of reason. Just as children in Israel were dedicated to God as infants so too children of believers.
The legalistic view of baptism is a dangerous thing.
Read that again. Slowly and let it sink in.
I have read it. It does not discuss justification or salvation from our sin nature. If it did, then we Christians should marry multiple non-Christians so they would be saved and destined to heaven because we married them.
That is entirely contrary to the Gospel. Anyone who believes that is a heretic.
“HOLY”. It means separated. Distinguished from the world around them. And if anyone runs their household IAW the Word of God, then the household IS distinguished and separated from the surrounding world. But it does NOT mean the spouse and children will all go to Heaven. For all have sinned, and all have fallen.
“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” - Jesus Christ
You cannot be made a child of God by your wife’s belief, but only through your own. But if your wife believes, your entire household WILL be different than it was before.
“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”
If you wish to argue that men can be saved and justified in God’s sight by marrying a Christian woman, say so. Otherwise, my interpretation answers the meaning - when one member of a household is saved, the nature of the household is changed...but not all individuals within the household are cleansed of their sin and made children of God.
A baby cannot make a decision to follow Christ so baptism is not needed. Baptism is only for those who have repented and given their lives to Christ as a public confession of faith in Him. Throughout the Bible, from John the Baptist on, the cry is to “repent and be baptised...”
Except that the Jewish age of accountability is 13. Hence the Bar Mitzvah.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.