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
Thank-you and God Bless.
I know that in the Acts of Apostles when whole households were baptized, that meant the little babies also because even they need the forgiveness of their sins.
No, a forgiven baby.
Jesus did called the little to Him.
That is true. Worthy of pondering. They didn't need to be baptized, for one thing, as did his own disciples.
“I read Augustine, and became a Calvinist, because Calvinism is just Augustinianism.”
But it isn’t. http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2014/01/does-st-augustine-agree-with-john.html
http://www.willcoxson.net/faith/augprot.htm
Other Protestants see the lie in the “Calvin was just an Augustinian” too: http://justandsinner.blogspot.com/2009/12/can-calvinists-really-be-concidered.html
I also think it’s interesting that any Protestant - of whatever stripe - would say that it was a Church Father who guided their theology and not “sola scriptura”. That pretty much puts the lie to sola scriptura and means that Protestant would be a horrible hypocrite for ever demanding anyone else rely on sola scriptura.
If it was so widely and clearly understood, then why did it need review by a council of bishops? We know that false teachers were already among the flock during Christ’s ministry on earth and immediately following his death and resurrection.
The entire New Testament testifies to the continuing and current apostasy. The Sanhedrin were the ‘Church Fathers’ of their day and they got it utterly wrong to the point of killing their Messiah. Hence the need for the corrective and clarifying epistles.
The author is practicing eisegesis. He has formulated his position and is bending the scriptures to his false belief. Don’t be a Bible-whisperer. Don’t counsel God. That’s a warning for all of us, even the very elect.
http://biblehub.com/mark/13-22.htm
http://biblehub.com/matthew/24-24.htm
Peter still living at this time warns about heresies introduced.
http://biblehub.com/2_peter/2-1.htm
Here’s Paul’s warnings about the immediacy of heresy in the Christian fold:
http://biblehub.com/galatians/2-4.htm
Here’s John: http://biblehub.com/1_john/4-1.htm
Matthew: http://biblehub.com/matthew/7-15.htm
Here’s Paul again:
http://biblehub.com/acts/13-6.htm
Here Paul notes that there will be false Apostles (Special Witnesses of Jesus Christ): http://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/11-13.htm
So the appeal to human authority is already condemned in the very few years right after the Resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God. Corruption and apostasy is the steady state of mankind. Always has been and always will be. A century is a lot of time to do mischief, no?
Imagine taking the electorate of 1915 and showing them the America of 2015. They wouldn’t recognize it. It would be abhorrent to them. It’s the devil’s world and it was in New Testament times as well. Don’t be deceived.
Worse is the weak arguments put forth by Richard Bucher. His degree in theology is little more than a long indoctrination in the doctrines of men, mingled with scripture and all the more accursed for it. He doesn’t deserve the title pastor, because a true pastor wouldn’t lead the sheep astray.
Every abortion then would result in a baby unbaptized and doomed to live forever outside God’s presence. It flies in the face of God is love. He cannot be if he so easily turns his children over to the devil. We don’t blame the victim, but seek justice for him. How can Christ’s Atonement be so easily overcome?
The author and his adherents take the untenable position of the pedophile. Every pedophile imputes the sin to the child/infant. It was an act of will that the baby wanted to be molested. It’s the doctrine of Molech and it is despicable and unsupportable from Holy Scripture.
“I’ll call the award, the “John 3:16 Critique Award”
Tell you what. You both can compete for it...
and of course, the anti-baptists folks like yourself would need to need to prove that no children were living in that household”
I feel no need to compete with Iscool, but I’d be content to co-receive such an award.
I have no need to prove none of the household baptisms involved infants because I’m not the one who is trying to make baptism be something other than what the principles of scripture teach: that baptism with water is done in recognition of conversion, and is an outward ceremony demonstrating the Baptism of the Holy Spirit that makes us one with Christ.
Baptism did not appear out of no where. It was practiced by the Jews for many centuries. It was known to the Gentiles as well. No one needed to explain to Cornelius what baptism meant. He did not need classes. He KNEW - because it was a common practice of the time.
Water Baptism marked a change in life, involving repentance and a commitment to a new way of living. It showed the world that the person had changed inside. It was a public statement of repentance and dedication, which an infant was incapable of doing.
At no time does anyone claim water baptism is a requirement for being saved from sin. It is used as a means of SANCTIFICATION - separating us from the world around us. Since the term “salvation” can refer to both justification and sanctification, it can be true that water baptism is used in salvation - not by justifying us or placing us in Christ, which is done by the Holy Spirit and not man - but by a public proclamation of repentance and dedication. It sets us apart from the world around us.
I’m a Baptist. I obviously value baptism. Indeed, I’d be content to baptize someone minutes after their conversion if they understood what it meant (as everyone did in the time of the Apostles).
But there is no requirement for water baptism in order to be joined to Christ and be placed “in Christ”, which is one of the most common expressions in the New Testament and one of the most important.
“In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.” - Ephesians 1
“Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” - Ephesians 2
IN HIM. IN CHRIST. What does that mean?
Predestination. Predestination (Gk prooizo) means “to decide beforehand” and applies to God’s purposes comprehended in election. Election is God’s choice “in Christ” of a people (the true church) for himself. Predestination comprehends what will happen to God’s people (all genuine believers in Christ).
(1) God predestines his elect to be: (a) called (Rom. 8:30); (b) justified (Ro 3:24, 8:30); (c) glorified (Ro 8:30); (d) conformed to the likeness of his Son (Ro 8:29); (e) holy and blameless (Eph 1:4); (f) adopted as God’s children (1:5); (g) redeemed (1:7); (h) recipients of an inheritance (1:14); (i) for the praise of his glory (Eph 1:2; 1 Pe 2:9); (j) recipients of the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13; Gal 3:14); and (k) created to do good works (Eph 2:10).
(2) Predestination, like election, refers to the corporate body of Christ (i.e., the true spiritual church), and comprehends individuals only in association with that body through a living faith in Jesus Christ (Eph 1:5, 7, 13; cf. Ac 2:38-41; 16:31).
Summary. Concerning election and predestination, we might use the analogy of a great ship on its way to heaven. The ship (the church) is chosen by God to be his very own vessel. Christ is the Captain and Pilot of this ship. All who desire to be a part of this elect ship and its Captain can do so through a living faith in Christ, by which they come on board the ship. As long as they are on the ship, in company with the ship’s Captain, they are among the elect. If they choose to abandon the ship and Captain, they cease to be part of the elect. Election is always only in union with the Captain and his ship. Predestination tells us about the ship’s destination and what God has prepared for those remaining on it. God invites everyone to come aboard the elect ship through faith in Jesus Christ. [Life in the Spirit Study Bible, pp. 1854-1855]
To be “in Him” is to be on the ship, to be one of the passengers. It means God is taking you home. It is an act of God, and it is the baptism that JESUS does that places us on board the ship: IN HIM.
” “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” - Matt 3
All will be baptized, either with the Holy Spirit or with Fire. “He will gather His wheat into the barn” - baptized with the Holy Spirit. “Burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire” describes the fate of all the rest.
Very early on, the prophecies of Peter and Paul came true:
“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.”
“27 For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God. 28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.”
The wolves came, and began to teach that they had a special power, and could control God with their rites, including water baptism. It was and is heresy to believe that something a man does to another will save him from sin and obligate God. If water baptism saved us, then we ought to flood the streets and save all the unconverted! But water baptism only has a role for those who have already believed, and no infant is capable of repenting and believing.
A child’s tantrum isn’t a function of conscious sin, but environment. Change the environment and a child needn’t throw a tantrum. Ours never did. We noted that every tantrum came from one or a combination of four things: tiredness, hunger, sickness or frustration. It’s an opportunity to learn for both child and parent not evidence of a sinful nature.
Paul’s particular mission wasn’t to baptize, but he didn’t preach alone. Others could have baptized. You’re relying on a logical fallacy: argumentum ex silentio.
It’s just as easy to argue that baptism was so widely known to and practiced by Christians that it didn’t need to be mentioned. Jesus Christ was baptized to fulfill all righteousness, something his followers were expected to achieve.
The missing element of every Christian faith is continuing revelation. Hence these arguments ad infinitum.
Acts 16:31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household."
You need to reread Genesis 1-3. I’d say that less than 1 in 1000 Christians understands the implications of the Fall. Your comments seem to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding. Keep in mind that a sin is a transgression is a missing of the mark.
Don’t dodge free_life’s question. Why not baptize a baby just before it’s born?
You’ve gotten the entire Bible wrong, so you might as well just keep going.
Correct. First comes faith in Jesus Christ, then repentance and then baptism. You’re spot on, here.
Those passages are difficult to understand if water baptism is necessary for salvation.
Back up to verse 13 and 14...
1 Corinthians 13 [...] Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
The people were all baptized, just not by Paul. Paul preached about baptism, but he rarely performed the baptisms. Where's the controvery?
“The people were all baptized, just not by Paul. Paul preached about baptism, but he rarely performed the baptisms. Where’s the controvery?”
If water baptism was required for new life, do you think Paul would leave it to others?
Heck, if it is required for new life, what happens to someone who converts, is not baptized immediately, and then dies?
And if it GIVES new life, then why don’t we forcibly baptize everyone? Just kidnap them, baptize them with water, and save them!
“>> and no infant is capable of repenting and believing.<<
Acts 16:31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”
Household. In context, I think it is safe to read that as anyone in the household who believes can be saved. However, since there is no indication in scripture that anyone is saved without repenting and believing, it is up to those who contradict the plain teaching of scripture to prove the household contained infants...
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.
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.
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.
At the very least, the "Bible-is-silent "age-based" argument infants applies equally across the board to teens & pre-teens. IoW, those age groups then shouldn't be baptized IF that's an argument to be stuck with.
Finally, most credobaptist groups have created "baby dedications." The Bible is silent on ANY age kid-dedications, let alone baby ones...
We would thereby expect credobaptists to show some consistency and staunchly come out against that...but they don't.
Water Baptism marked a change in life, involving repentance and a commitment to a new way of living.
Repentance is an ONGOING part of life for EVERY Christian.
No Christian repents only once -- as if it's a baptism-related checklist thing.
IoW, it's EXPECTED of EVERY Christian to repent as often as necessary in their life.
Nobody is claiming that this expectation will be any different for anybody. Every person baptized as an infant, a toddler, etc...will have this expectation in their life.
People wield the "repentance" argument as if those baptized will never be expected to repent. (Nothing could be further from the truth)
An adult being baptized doesn't repent once-and-for-all time; and neither anybody younger than that.
Tell us where the "belief" verses are about the rest of his household? (Go ahead, list them for us)
Correction, “little ones”. My brain now on EDT.
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.