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
In fact, this verse argues the exact opposite of what you are putting into it:
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many" (Rom 5:12-15)
So if death enters "by sin," but if there is no law there is no sin, why then do people die who have no law? The "neveretheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses," would imply that there must have been some law prior to the coming of Moses of which they were all being destroyed for. And that can only be the "offense of one" which was being imputed upon all the descendants of Adam. This also does not speak of merely having the "ability" to sin, but condemns them for "all have sinned," including children, which can only be true if all humanity was involved in the sin of Adam.
It certainly isn't impossible. I read Augustine, and became a Calvinist, because Calvinism is just Augustinianism.
Provide it, and also with a link so we can see what Catholic website is promoting it. I have a nasty surprise for you when you post it.
Rom_5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
The point is: if you (or a baby) has no knowledge of the law (or natural law) there is no sin accounted to you (or a baby)...
Sprinkling a baby will do no more for the baby that it will do for your petunias when you sprinkle them...Actually the petunias will benefit more...
Sprinkling a baby will do no more for its soul than sprinkling an avowed muzlim, or hindu...
No one gets saved in the bible except that they first turn to Jesus, whether they get water baptized or not...
That is one of the penalties of the original sin of Adam and Eve...Whether we sin or don't sin, we still have to work and die (and then the judgment)...The sin or no sin question determines our destination after death...
Well, #1...when I hear you complain about the Mormons making 12 yo part of their Aaronic priesthood...well, then I'll know this may really be of concern to you.
#2...It's almost as if you haven't dug into your Bible very thoroughly:
For example, these Passages (note the bold-face):
4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” 7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” 8 and, “A stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for. 9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. (1 Peter 2)
Who do you think "you" who are the "chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation" are?
What? You think married Peter was referencing a "nation" of batchelor priests?
Tell ya what: Google "priesthood of all believers"
Here's another verse:
To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has MADE US to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! (Revelation 1:5-6)
But this point ignores the problem: the sin and death that has passed on all men, including babies who perish.
As for baptism-- we do not believe in baptismal regeneration. The point of baptism is that children, who are not free from sin, and are not free from faith either (like John the Baptist in the womb!), are just as worthy of baptism and into the full life of the church and all its privileges as anyone else. It is not true that there is an "age of accountability," or that confessional baptism is superior, because as valid members of the church (for Peter says that the promise is to us AND our children in Acts), they should not be restrained from receiving its rights.
An unbelieving adult who spouts "making a decision for Christ" isn't anything but an adult with false security reinforced by a church failing to disciple him or her
Wanna ensure people see this kind of "logic" in action:
There are some common things that are required for salvation...One is God's grace...The next is repentance (turning to Jesus), and the last is Faith (not in a religion)...
OK, 3 requirements, says Iscool:
1. God's grace
2. Repentance (turning to Jesus)
3. Faith (beyond faith in a religion)
Now, let's review the six Biblical passages that Iscool selected to critique baptism...and apply them to #1 above:
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:
There's Matthew's version...
Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
That's Luke's version...No...
Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Conversion without
Act 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
No...
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Act 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Again, no...
Act 20:20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,
Act 20:21 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
Repentance and Faith...Obviously...
Does this properly represent Paul's expressions on grace?
No.
This is an outright attempt at cherry-picking deception.
And all I had to do was change Iscool's use of the word "baptism" to "grace" to show you who the author of that deception was.
Yeah, well, I would hope we would all know Ephesians 2:8-9, which says: 8 For it is BY GRACE you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
As Iscool says in post #64, grace is indeed an essential "requirement" for salvation.
Yet I review your cherry picking of the chapters of Scripture -- in this case Acts 3 -- please show any verse in Acts 3 which talks about grace.
By your deceptive logic, grace wouldn't be a "requirement" for that which we've been discussing.
#1) I guess I should have added a sarcasm tag to my post, you seem to have missed I was being sarcastic....I thought it would be obvious.
#2) I don’t have to Google priesthood of all believers, I am one and I preach it from the pulpit. I case you haven’t figured it out yet I am an Evangelical born again believer, I am not a Catholic.
Peace and chill out! LOL
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
BTW..I do not baptise children who do not understand what baptism is and are unable to make such a decision to give themselves fully to the Lord. The youngest we have baptized was 8 but normally not under 12. I have however baptized lots of adults.
Well indeed apparently Paul didn't do many baptisms...we know he baptized the household of Stephanas -- 1 Cor. 1:16...and of course, the anti-baptists folks like yourself would need to need to prove that no children were living in that household...'cause really all it would it take is for Paul to have baptized one young child...and poof...there goes the total anti-paedo baptism argument.
But let's review your logic for a moment:
1. Paul says not sent to baptize.
2. Therefore, you claim, baptism is NOT the Gospel
3. "Those passages are difficult to understand if water baptism is necessary for salvation."
4. "If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved."
5. Baptism is not efficacious for salvation (repeating your pt #2)
OK. Who said the following?
34"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW... (Matthew 10:34-35)
OK, I think some of us might recognize that as Jesus.
So, let's apply your logic -- as applied to Paul -- this time to Jesus
1. Jesus says not sent to bring peace
2. Therefore, especially in light of all the family conflict mentioned in Matt. 10:35 by Jesus, peace and reconciliation is not the Gospel
3. Those passages in Matthew 10 are difficult to understand if the peace-on-earth, goodwill-to-men special type of peace & reconciliation brought by Jesus is necessary for an eternal community living forever together in heaven
4. If peace & reconciliation were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Jesus to proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom, but not bring peace & reconciliation in the process? No one would have been ever reconciled -- either to God or to fellow mankind
5. Peace & reconciliation is not efficacious for salvation
And yet...what part does Paul say that reconciliation is part of the Gospel??
Do you realize what was recorded in that Acts 3 sermon was less than 350 words? (Of which over 80 of them were 3 letters or less?)
A good chunk of posts on threads like these are over 350 words.
What? Do you think the Biblical accounts were manned by stenographers and its leaders' sermons covered to the nth degree like C-Span?
I'm not sure who I should give out a new FREEPER award on this thread to -- you or Iscool.
I'll call the award, the "John 3:16 Critique Award"
Tell you what. You both can compete for it.
All you have to do is list the 1800 million things we know that are of God that Jesus failed to mention in John 3:16.
You each have til the time change kicks in within your time zone.
(Gentleman, good luck!)
Well, thanks for clarifying!
And contributing to the thread!
All souls who have inhabited a body proceeding out of Adam's DNA must suffer physical death; that is, separation of the soul and spirit from a no-longer-functioning meat body system. That is the kind of death that the new-born infant must suffer sometime after birth. He is born to die. Even Jesus was. That is the kind of death brought in by Adam's sin.
But Adam's sin also caused spiritual death--the inability of man's spirit to communicate with God's Spirit. Unless that baby is rescued, he/she will the suffer Eternal death, the Lake of Fire.
When sin is not imputed, as with the babe who is not conscious of the law, the babe might have to experience an early physical death, but its original sin will be overlooked, and its soul and spirit will be given both Eternal and spiritual life: he will come under The Blood.
Neither the blood of bulls, nor of goats, nor of the water of human visible baptism can take away sins. Only Jesus' Blood can do that. And after being made aware of sin, of righteousness, and of imminent judging by God, the person who fails to appropriate Jesus' work and resurrection power will also die physically, remain spiritually dead, and be given over to Eternal but conscious death, ultimately in the lake of fire.
One who responds to this awareness by admitting his depravity and casting himself on God's unfailing mercy will experience the graceful spiritual covering and cleansing of Jesus' blood shed for him, and will have Jesus' righteousness imputed to him, and will pass immediately into spiritual life and communication with God and His Son through the Holy Spirit, will receive Eternal, abundant Life immediately, never to cease; and at an appropriate time chosen by The Father, will also have a new never-dying flesh body to house his/her preserved soul and spirit.
And in that Paradise, there will be individuals who, as babes, never committed sin and to whom the original sin transmitted with their temporary tent of Adam's flesh was never imputed to their account by God.
In this all, the proper use of water baptism, as a visible external announcement of an internal change by faith in Christ and His Blood, has no effect one way or the other. It only relates to the authorized enlistment of a person into His Church and into His service while on earth.
Water baptism can never take away sins. To think otherwise is both intellectually and spiritually foolish.
Two thoughts:
1) It's an assumption on your part that "original sin" will be overlooked. In fact, if "all have fallen short" of the glory of God, and if "no one can see the Kingdom of heaven" unless they are born again, then it is absolute that God overlooks no sin, even original, for all sin is heinous in the sight of God.
2) The scripture makes not just physical death, but spiritual "condemnation" universal by imputation of Adam, in parallel to the justification that is imputed by Christ to believers:
Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
If eternal life is a matter of justification, then "judgment and condemnation" must not refer merely to physical death, but to an entire condemnation entirely.
Furthermore, going back to the point that Paul made: where there is no law, there is no sin; nevertheless, from Adam to Moses death reigned. Clearly these men who were not under any law were subject to death and sin, and this can only be through the condemnation of Adam that passed onto all men, not their "many offenses," but "one offense" passing on death and judgment and condemnation to all.
Of couse it can, because it has not at birth been employes to commit sin--there is no sinning to be accounted for. And where there is no conscious awareness of law, natural or Mosaic, there is no sin imputed after birth. Tjis is not an assumption.
2) The scripture makes not just physical death, but spiritual "condemnation" universal by imputation of Adam,
Where there is no sin committed nor imputed, there is no blockage of spiritual life with its concomitant communication, AFIK. Of course, considering the transmission and consciousness of law:
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) . . ." (Rom 2:14-15 AV).
Though any babe has the law written naturally in its heart, but it takes time for the awareness of it to set in and bring the person into account. God knows when this happens. Then without the convicting Gospel, the person is condemned.
. . .from Adam to Moses death reigned. . . .
This is physical death that reigned, not spiritual death. By acknowledgement on God, trusting in Jehovah *Christ) and invoking His Name, righteousness was imputed to them and hence real spiritual life recommenced, as in the Garden.
And finally, Moses was able to communicate to us what Elohim gave him to tell us through the written Word of God. So there was spiritual and Eternal life available all along, available to an who trusted God, as did Enoch. Without faith it is impossible to please God (babies excepted, IMHO).
1) The person is under "judgment and condemnation" already due to Adam (Rom 5:18). It is not due to their personal offenses, "but the offense of one." You are claiming that there is no condemnation until they offend anew, but this isn't what the verses say.
Again, "For as in Adam all die," and we are regarded already, as by nature, "children of wrath," "unclean" from the very womb, "shaped in iniquity," going forth from birth doing evil. Not "for in our sins we die," or "in our awareness of our sins we die," but "in Adam" we die, quite clearly meaning that we sin in Adam and participate in that common condemnation to not only our physical death, but our eternal condemnation, being born objects of God's wrath. In us there is our inherited sin from Adam, differentiated from our actual sin, and both these sins make us utterly unacceptable to God.
This is physical death that reigned, not spiritual death. By acknowledgement on God, trusting in Jehovah *Christ) and invoking His Name, righteousness was imputed to them and hence real spiritual life recommenced, as in the Garden.
This must be spiritual death, for when Adam sinned he died spiritually, and then begot us after his own image (not after God's) (Gen 5:3). It is only through Christ that we regain the image of God, and thus our spiritual life that was lost in Adam (Col 3:10, Eph 4:24).
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.