Posted on 10/05/2001 11:02:13 PM PDT by Uriel1975
The fact is that infant baptism is death to any church. It leads people to think that they are saved because they were baptized as infants. As Dr.Grady writes in his history of the United States, ...This is the hardline Baptist position and traditional argument. I think most Baptists are familiar with this argument. However, it is not persuasive outside Baptist circles. It's more inflammatory than persuasive to paedobaptists, I think.
I was baptized as a teen, in a non-denominational church (which was apparently Mennonite Anabaptist in its distant past) by the lay-back or "burial" immersion method. So far my Presbyterian teaching-Elder (pastor) hasn't tried to sprinkle me...Aha! Somehow, I've suspected that you were baptized as a believer! So your defense of paedobaptism is somewhat theoretical.
So, a few posts and a pulled thread ago you are making accusations at Jerry and calling for him to repent and now you are acting as if you never said anything....
"I hope we don't need to air those rather militant arguments here."
This is realy "GWB speak" for: "I don't think the lurkers will notice, but I intend to "stir the pot" a bit more".
Yes, I merely have to laugh sometimes....
Let the saints be joyful in glory; let them sing aloud upon their beds. Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand...
...this honor have all His saints. Praise ye the LORD!
Infant baptism section of the Large Catechism:
Of Infant Baptism.
47] Here a question occurs by which the devil, through his sects, confuses the world, namely, Of Infant Baptism, whether children also believe, and are justly baptized. Concerning this we say briefly: 48] Let the simple dismiss this question from their minds, and refer it to the learned. But if you wish to answer, 49] then answer thus:—
That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from His own work, namely, that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost; and that there are yet many even to-day in whom we perceive that they have the Holy Ghost both because of their doctrine and life; as it is also given to us by the grace of God that we can explain the Scriptures and come to the knowledge of Christ, which is impossible without the Holy Ghost. 50] But if God did not accept the baptism of infants, He would not give the Holy Ghost nor any of His gifts to any of them; in short, during this long time unto this day no man upon earth could have been a Christian. Now, since God confirms Baptism by the gifts of His Holy Ghost, as is plainly perceptible in some of the church fathers, as St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others, who were baptized in infancy, and since the holy Christian Church cannot perish until the end of the world, they must acknowledge that such infant baptism is pleasing to God. For He can never be opposed to Himself, or support falsehood and wickedness, or for its promotion impart His grace and Spirit. 51] This is indeed the best and strongest proof for the simple-minded and unlearned. For they shall not take from us or overthrow this article: I believe a holy Christian Church, the communion of saints.
52] Further, we say that we are not so much concerned to know whether the person baptized believes or not; for on that account Baptism does not become invalid; but everything depends upon the Word and command of God. 53] This now is perhaps somewhat acute, but it rests entirely upon what I have said, that Baptism is nothing else than water and the Word of God in and with each other, that is, when the Word is added to the water, Baptism is valid, even though faith be wanting. For my faith does not make Baptism, but receives it. Now, Baptism does not become invalid even though it be wrongly received or employed; since it is not bound (as stated) to our faith, but to the Word.
54] For even though a Jew should to-day come dishonestly and with evil purpose, and we should baptize him in all good faith, we must say that his baptism is nevertheless genuine. For here is the water together with the Word of God, even though he does not receive it as he should, just as those who unworthily go to the Sacrament receive the true Sacrament, even though they do not believe.
55] Thus you see that the objection of the sectarians is vain. For (as we have said) even though infants did not believe, which, however, is not the case, yet their baptism as now shown would be valid, and no one should rebaptize them; just as nothing is detracted from the Sacrament though some one approach it with evil purpose, and he could not be allowed on account of his abuse to take it a second time the selfsame hour, as though he had not received the true Sacrament at first; for that would mean to blaspheme and profane the Sacrament in the worst manner. How dare we think that God's Word and ordinance should be wrong and invalid because we make a wrong use of it?
56] Therefore I say, if you did not believe then believe now and say thus: The baptism indeed was right, but I, alas! did not receive it aright. For I myself also, and all who are baptized, must speak thus before God: I come hither in my faith and in that of others, yet I cannot rest in this, that I believe, and that many people pray for me; but in this I rest, that it is Thy Word and command. Just as I go to the Sacrament trusting not in my faith, but in the Word of Christ; whether I am strong or weak, that I commit to God. But this I know, that He bids me go, eat and drink, etc., and gives me His body and blood; that will not deceive me or prove false to me.
57] Thus we do also in infant baptism. We bring the child in the conviction and hope that it believes, and we pray that God may grant it faith; but we do not baptize it upon that, but solely upon the command of God. Why so? Because we know that God does not lie. I and my neighbor and, in short, all men, may err and deceive, but the Word of God cannot err.
58] Therefore they are presumptuous, clumsy minds that draw such inferences and conclusions as these: Where there is not the true faith, there also can be no true Baptism. Just as if I would infer: If I do not believe, then Christ is nothing; or thus: If I am not obedient, then father, mother, and government are nothing. Is that a correct conclusion, that whenever any one does not do what he ought, the thing in itself shall be nothing and of no value? 59] My dear, just invert the argument and rather draw this inference: For this very reason Baptism is something and is right, because it has been wrongly received. For if it were not right and true in itself, it could not be misused nor sinned against. The saying is: Abusus non tollit, sed confirmat substantiam, Abuse does not destroy the essence, but confirms it. For gold is not the less gold though a harlot wear it in sin and shame.
60] Therefore let it be decided that Baptism always remains true, retains its full essence, even though a single person should be baptized, and he, in addition, should not believe truly. For God's ordinance and Word cannot be made variable or be altered by men. 61] But these people, the fanatics, are so blinded that they do not see the Word and command of God, and regard Baptism and the magistrates only as they regard water in the brook or in pots, or as any other man; and because they do not see faith nor obedience, they conclude that they are to be regarded as invalid. 62] Here lurks a concealed seditious devil, who would like to tear the crown from the head of authority and then trample it under foot, and, in addition, pervert and bring to naught all the works and ordinances of God. 63] Therefore we must be watchful and well armed, and not allow ourselves to be directed nor turned away from the Word, in order that we may not regard Baptism as a mere empty sign, as the fanatics dream.
64] Lastly, we must also know what Baptism signifies, and why God has ordained just such external sign and ceremony for the Sacrament by which we are first received into the Christian Church. 65] But the act or ceremony is this, that we are sunk under the water, which passes over us, and afterwards are drawn out again. These two parts, to be sunk under the water and drawn out again, signify the power and operation of Baptism, which is nothing else than putting to death the old Adam, and after that the resurrection of the new man, both of which must take place in us all our lives, so that a truly Christian life is nothing else than a daily baptism, once begun and ever to be continued. For this must be practised without ceasing, that we ever keep purging away whatever is of the old Adam, and that that which belongs to the new man come forth. 66] But what is the old man? It is that which is born in us from Adam, angry, hateful, envious, unchaste, stingy, lazy, haughty, yea, unbelieving, infected with all vices, and having by nature nothing good in it. 67] Now, when we are come into the kingdom of Christ, these things must daily decrease, that the longer we live we become more gentle, more patient, more meek, and ever withdraw more and more from unbelief, avarice, hatred, envy, haughtiness.
68] This is the true use of Baptism among Christians, as signified by baptizing with water. Where this, therefore, is not practised, but the old man is left unbridled, so as to continually become stronger, that is not using Baptism, but striving against Baptism. 69] For those who are without Christ cannot but daily become worse, according to the proverb which expresses the truth, "Worse and worse—the longer, the worse." 70] If a year ago one was proud and avaricious, then he is much prouder and more avaricious this year, so that the vice grows and increases with him from his youth up. A young child has no special vice; but when it grows up, it becomes unchaste and impure, and when it reaches maturity, real vices begin to prevail the longer, the more.
71] Therefore the old man goes unrestrained in his nature if he is not checked and suppressed by the power of Baptism. On the other hand, where men have become Christians, he daily decreases until he finally perishes. That is truly to be buried in Baptism, and daily to come forth again. 72] Therefore the external sign is appointed not only for a powerful effect, but also for a signification. 73] Where, therefore, faith flourishes with its fruits, there it has no empty signification, but the work [of mortifying the flesh] accompanies it; but where faith is wanting, it remains a mere unfruitful sign.
74] And here you see that Baptism, both in its power and signification, comprehends also the third Sacrament, which has been called repentance, 75] as it is really nothing else than Baptism. For what else is repentance but an earnest attack upon the old man [that his lusts be restrained] and entering upon a new life? Therefore, if you live in repentance, you walk in Baptism, which not only signifies such a new life, but also produces, begins, and exercises it. 76] For therein are given grace, the Spirit, and power to suppress the old man, so that the new man may come forth and become strong.
77] Therefore our Baptism abides forever; and even though some one should fall from it and sin, nevertheless we always have access thereto, that we may again subdue the old man. 78] But we need not again be sprinkled with water; for though we were put under the water a hundred times, it would nevertheless be only one Baptism, although the operation and signification continue and remain. 79] Repentance, therefore, is nothing else than a return and approach to Baptism, that we repeat and practise what we began before, but abandoned.
80] This I say lest we fall into the opinion in which we were for a long time, imagining that our Baptism is something past, which we can no longer use after we have fallen again into sin. The reason is, that it is regarded only according to the external act once performed [and completed]. 81] And this arose from the fact that St. Jerome wrote that repentance is the second plank by which we must swim forth and cross over after the ship is broken, on which we step and are carried across when we come into the Christian Church. 82] Thereby the use of Baptism has been abolished so that it can profit us no longer. Therefore the statement is not correct, or at any rate not rightly understood. For the ship never breaks, because (as we have said) it is the ordinance of God, and not a work of ours; but it happens, indeed, that we slip and fall out of the ship. Yet if any one fall out, let him see to it that he swim up and cling to it till he again come into it and live in it, as he had formerly begun.
83] Thus it appears what a great, excellent thing Baptism is, which delivers us from the jaws of the devil and makes us God's own, suppresses and takes away sin, and then daily strengthens the new man; and is and remains ever efficacious until we pass from this estate of misery to eternal glory.
84] For this reason let every one esteem his Baptism as a daily dress in which he is to walk constantly, that he may ever be found in the faith and its fruits, that he suppress the old man and grow up in the new. 85] For if we would be Christians, we must practise the work whereby we are Christians. 86] But if any one fall away from it, let him again come into it. For just as Christ, the Mercy-seat, does not recede from us or forbid us to come to Him again, even though we sin, so all His treasure and gifts also remain. If, therefore, we have once in Baptism obtained forgiveness of sin, it will remain every day, as long as we live, that is, as long as we carry the old man about our neck.
Now, now! Certainly there is truth in your accusation. Infant baptism may in fact lead to this sort of complacency. Personally, I have railed against this kind of thinking in my own Lutheran church. However, I also have a number of friends who come from adult baptism traditions who assure me that there are many teens in their churches who are baptized simply because everyone (parents, grandparents, pastors, teachers) expects them to do it, not because they are expressing a real faith of their own. I have also known many Christians, baptized as adults, who are content with "I-trust-Jesus-as-my-personal-Lord-and-Savior-and-I'm-going-to-heaven" -- but they never grow into the mature faith Paul and the rest of the New Testament calls us to.
Would you deny that there are many Christians who have been baptized as infants, who have then been nurtured in faith and grown into a vibrant relationship with God in Jesus Christ? I know quite a few such Christians in Lutheran and other infant-baptizing churches, as well as those who come from adult-baptizing churches.
The trouble in both our traditions, it seems to me, is that authentic discipleship is too rarely modeled and that baptism can too easily become a rubber-stamp exercise no matter what age it's done.
This is realy "GWB speak" for: "I don't think the lurkers will notice, but I intend to "stir the pot" a bit more".Having now protected those thousands of lurkers from my evil wiles, you can no doubt sleep well tonight.
While there may be those who are being baptized as adults who do not understand the Gospel (1Cor.15:3-5), that is the fault of the Baptizer.
There are those who come to faith in Christ after being baptized as an infant, however, there are many more who never do, thinking that the baptism put them into the Church and they are thereby saved.
It is not scriptural, but traditional, a hold over from Roman Catholism.
Even so come Lord Jesus
it provided 'that all persons of sober life and correct sentiments, without being examined s to a change of heart, might profess religion or become members of the Church,and have their children baptized, though they did not come to the Lord's table.
Within a decade of this momentous compromise, the signs of spiritual depression were everywhere to be seen,
In 1670 a decay in sprituality was very apparent...as converting work doth cease, so doth religion die away; though more insensibly, yet more irrevocably. How much is religion dying in the hearts of sincere Christians!
In 1702 Increase Mather said:'look into our pulpits and see if there is such glory there as thee once was. Look into the civil State. does Christ reign there as he once did? How many churches, how many towns are there in New England over which we may sigh and say, the glory is gone'(Grady, What hath God Wrought, p.88-89)
Infant baptism is not a harmless ritual. It lulls the church into accepting the unregenerate into her fellowship.
As for the 'militant' aspect, since Baptists are the only ones who do not baptize infants, we need to be very forthcoming in explaining why.
Even so come Lord Jesus
As for the 'militant' aspect, since Baptists are the only ones who do not baptize infants, we need to be very forthcoming in explaining why.I agree with that. I was wondering if you knew of a list of denominations who does baptize infants and who doesn't. I don't know of such a list.
I believe that most Wesleyan churches do not baptise infants unless the parents insist..
In our church the Pastor actively works against infant baptism and explains to the parents it is of no spiritual benefit..I have not seen one baptised in the 2 years I have attended there..but I have seen many dedications..The previous church I attended for 15 years I never saw a baptism there eithor
"Nothing" is a very large statement to make. Would you take the rough equivalent in your tradition -- the dedication of an infant -- and say it means "nothing"?
Years ago I realized that my friends in adult baptism traditions were doing something very different in baptism than the infant baptism I had been raised with. Here's how I finally came to understand it:
In adult baptism, the baptism itself is much like a wedding ceremony. (I'm speaking in metaphors, here, not with any theological precision but in large strokes.) The person being baptized has met Jesus and fallen in love, and the baptism is a public declaration of love and commitment on both parts. It is the public expression of a lifetime covenant.
Infant baptism, on the other hand, is nothing like a wedding. It is more like an adoption. Does an adopted baby have a choice about its adoptive parents? No. The parents do the choosing, the legal transactions, the nurturing, etc. Infant baptism looks to Jesus Christ as the initiator and sustainer of the relationship and the parents, sponsors, and congregation as the earthly nurturers of faith. I say again, infant baptism is nothing like a wedding. Such baptism of helpless infants will never satisfy an adult baptism-oriented person as a true "baptism." The infant who is baptized obviously needs to grow into the faith they have been promised. They need to take ownership of it, to meet Jesus and fall in love with him for themselves, to play with the wedding metaphor.
Can you see that the baptism of an infant, while it does not meet your criteria for what a "baptism" is, can be very meaningful in another tradition? Like I said, "nothing" may be more (or less) than you wanted to say. I am not defending infant baptism as theologically perfect -- but I am not willing to say that it is meaningless, either. I have lived all my life in a relationship with Jesus Christ -- quite meaningful to me! -- that has its deepest beginnings in just such a "meaningless" baptism.
Even so, come Lord Jesus
Even so, come Lord Jesus
RnMomof7: In our church the Pastor actively works against infant baptism and explains to the parents it is of no spiritual benefit..I have not seen one baptised in the 2 years I have attended there..but I have seen many dedications..The previous church I attended for 15 years I never saw a baptism there eithor.Glad to hear it. I know you were baptized as an infant but was baptized as a believer as an adult. Did infant baptism mean anything special to you compared with the baptism as a believer?
fortheDeclaration: I reject the idea of 'dedication of babies' also. The idea of infant baptism is nothing because it is nothing to God! If it means nothing to Him why should it mean anything to us!I don't necessarily reject infant dedication. I only recognize it as the parents expressing their intent to raise their child in Christian belief and their desire that the church should help them to do that. Probably, it's actually more accurate to call it a "parents dedication". But you'll probably say that such is the duty of any sincere Christian parent. And you'd be right to say it. But if it helps to steel the resolve of those parents in the upbringing of their child, I have no real objection to it. My own mother personally dedicated me to God as an infant the day I was born and I suspect she did the same with my brother and sisters. I can't say it ever meant much to me to know this, any more than an infant baptism would have. But maybe when she was hauling us kids to church, teaching Sunday school and VBS, helping organize and support the youth group, maybe it helped her to keep her committment to raise us kids in the Christian faith. She could always recall her prayer to God and her promise to Him on my spiritual behalf.
These 'harmless' rituals seem to grow and grow until we forget why we have Church, to 'grow in the knowledge and wisdom of our Lord Jesus Christ'
Also, we see (from comments made on these threads) how infant dedication is giving support to those who believe in infant baptism, by allowing them to say that we are doing the same thing (just using different words).
Even so, come Lord Jesus
...So I've had little time for FReeping of late.
But, yes -- this is one of 2 or 3 threads I would like to return to at a later date.
Thanks for the kind words. I enjoyed the debate very much, and look forward to its good natured (probably on-again off-again) continuation.
That said, I must state again for the record: it is my belief that you have behaved acrimoniously towards certain anaBaptist Elders of the Church of Jesus Christ, in the past. As a communicant member of the Presbyterian Church ("the Church of the Elders"), it is impossible for me to simply "let sleeping dogs lie" on such a matter. I believe that as a Christian Layperson, you have a duty to seek reconciliation with any of your Brethren; how much the more, then, with any Elders (even though they be not your Elders in terms of Local Administration).
I am not stating this with any attached assignation of "blame" for the events in question. Rather, I am simply stating that you do have a Duty to seek reconciliation prior to each participation in the Lord's Supper. This may stick in your craw; this may stick in their craw. But it is a Christian Duty nonetheless, and may not be summarily forgotten. As always, IMHO.
Best,
(the-quite-busy) Uriel
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.