Why We Baptize Babies (The Case for Infant Baptism) [Conservative Lutheran position]

ORLutheran.com (Our Redeemer Lutheran, Lexington, KY) ^ | Pastor Richard Bucher, Th.D

[Biggirl]

I thought that Jewish circumcision came 8 days after birth?

[Biggirl]

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.

[Biggirl]

....And the Bible did say that “whole households” were baptized. So that had to include little babies and small children.

[Mr Rogers]

“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.

[Colofornian]

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.

#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?

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

But it isn’t.

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.

[Mr Rogers]

“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.

[StormPrepper]

All that matters is how God views infant baptism.

Baptism by proper authority is necessary for repentance. It is the starting point where we enter the path leading to eternal life.

Little children, below the age of accountability, are not capable of committing sin, therefore do not need baptism. They are covered by the atonement of Jesus Christ.

To baptize a little child, in God's eyes, is to deny the atonement of Jesus Christ. Regardless of your intent, it is a grievous sin in the eyes of God.

[CynicalBear]

>>Household. In context<<

Do you make decisions for your children until they reach the age of reason?

[CynicalBear]

>>Tell us where the "belief" verses are about the rest of his household? (Go ahead, list them for us)<<

I'll ask you also. Did you make decisions for your children before they reached the age of reason?

[CynicalBear]

>>The Bible is silent on ANY age kid-dedications, let alone baby ones... “<<

What was circumcision for? Reference Genesis 17:12-14.

[Iscool]

And isn't rather interesting that "belief" was attached to ONLY the jailer in Acts 16:31, yet in Acts 16:33 "then IMMEDIATELY he and all his household were baptized."

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...

[Iscool]

I wonder if anyone else gets a headache reading your posts...

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...

[Mr Rogers]

“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...

[Mr Rogers]

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...

[CynicalBear]

>>It marked them as members of the Old Covenant.<<

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.

[CynicalBear]

"and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”

Read that again. Slowly and let it sink in.

[Mr Rogers]

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.

[rabidralph]

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...”

[1010RD]

Except that the Jewish age of accountability is 13. Hence the Bar Mitzvah.