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
Cyprian was not an apostle nor is what he wrote scripture.
Irenaeus was not an apostles nor is what he wrote scripture.
I understand you have a monomania with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (I found this change of subject for you very refreshing and presumed that you might have been recently married or won the Lottery), but that’s not the topic. Let’s stay on topic. Try to focus.
The conclusion that a baby can sin inexorably leads to the Pedophiles Postulate: the infant asked for it.
Furthermore, it indicates the Satan wins and that God cares more for procedure, than faith and the scriptures end to end refute that. A willing heart...
* Acts 16:25-34
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
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.
* Acts 11:14
Act 10:2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.
Act 10:33 Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.
Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
WITHOUT WATER BAPTISM...
* Acts 18:8
Act 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
* Acts 16:15
Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
The bible doesn't tell us about Lydia's family...But in view of the next two scriptures, there is no doubt how it went...
(Of course, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 would have had no "household" to baptize)
Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
WITHOUT BAPTISM!!!
Luk 18:16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
No repentance...No baptism...Children aren't required for either...
Next from post #143...
Exactly. Be baptized -- which the NT describes as a purely passive act that happens to us. (I can perhaps go into this in more detail on another post)
The bible says exactly the opposite than what you claim...
Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
It was the Eunuch's decision to get baptized...He asked for it...The Eunuch could not have gotten baptized without walking down into the water...Not passive...Extremely active...
Note that the Scriptures don't say, "Repent and make 'a decision for Christ,' now do they?
Repenting IS making a decision for Jesus...
The Bible is not a one to one map of all events in history. It’s a summation with some description, but with much left out. They had the benefit of continuing revelation. The Church of Jesus Christ is a living church, at least for them it was. Further, what you’re reading is not what happened. They actually spoke directly with saints (believers) who taught the Gospel. You don’t and cannot know what exactly was taught or explained by simply reading the Bible.
This is good.
The Catholic Church fathers were inspired by God???
If you get to heaven, be sure to tell David that was your feedback to his inspired Word...then you can tell God next)
Everything you posted was meant to show overall concepts, and not specific detailed instructions.
(Yeah, like the "overall concept" of universal sin generationally handed down...otherwise what we have is the Stormprepper household learning sin from Mr. & Mrs. Stormprepper)
Colofornian demonstrates why a living prophet who is in communication with God is necessary. Living Prophets like what Rev 11 refers to.
SP, even Joseph Smith taught these concepts occasionally if you'd but pay attention to them:
"And the whole world lieth in sin, and groaneth under darkness and under the bondage of sin...that the whole world groaneth under sin and darkness even now." (D&C 84:49, 53)
In D&C 29:41, Smith admitted that the Garden of Eden sins led to spiritual death.
So what can come spiritually alive from that which is spiritually dead?
A FReeper posted this tidbit on a website last week:
William Webster, a former Catholic turned Evangelical, in his 1995 book The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, freely admits the unanimous position of the Church Fathers as to what is called “baptismal regeneration”:
“The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers....From the early days of the Church, baptism was universally perceived as the means of receiving four basic gifts: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit.”(Webster, page 95-96)
If you're so dead-set vs. baptism, maybe you should let Jesus know!
(His Great Commission for making disciples in Matt. 28 heavily built up both baptizing and teaching as THE way to make disciples).
I could go thru LOTS of Scriptures and conclude, "See! No 'make disciples' phrasing! See! No 'teaching the discipled to observe everything I have commanded'
I would hope others coming into a thread like this wouldn't conclude that Jesus & His Great Commission is being tossed under the bus.
And, btw, this kind of posting goes back as a throwback to Mr Rogers' post about how little the apostle Paul baptized.
I mean Jesus gave the 11 disciples -- and all who are in Christ who take that commission seriously -- a commission to make disciples (by) baptizing and teaching.
Would you and Mr Rogers really accuse the 11 disciples of directly disobeying Him?
Considering that one day you will likely see these disciples face-to-face and fellowship with them, are you really going to go on the record for heaven & earth to see that you don't think these disciples baptized as they went along...and made it a common practice of disciple-making?
And, Iscool, if your church is not making baptism a common part of your disciple-making, why not?
And if they are, would those your church is attempting to disciple be "inspired" to be baptized by all your posts against it?
Because many of your posts aren't just saying, "No infant baptism." But "no baptism" at all.
An author named Mueller in his book on "Christian Dogmatics" cites somebody who labels others as "traitors and miscreants who tear baptism apart." I don't think you fall into that category; But I would hope that you wouldn't give anybody pause to think otherwise by your attacks on baptism.
If infant baptism is the imperative that the article states, why did God not set that example at Jesus’ birth? God could have certainly set the timing of John The Baptist’s arrival to coincide with the Jesus’ birth. It was the event of His baptism at age 30 that ushered in His ministry. I tend to believe that Jesus, sinless and in no need of salvation or baptism, set the example and significance of baptism as the conscious act of a disciple in obedience to God’s command. An infant cannot make such a choice.
That's one of the reasons I'm not Catholic...
We have posted more than sufficient amounts of scripture to prove there is no (water) baptismal regeneration...
“Because many of your posts aren’t just saying, “No infant baptism.” But “no baptism” at all.”
Who is suggesting to do that? Anyone?
Iscool wrote:
“No repentance...No baptism...”
Exactly! There is no reason to baptize someone who is not washed in the blood of Jesus. You cannot unite someone in His death and resurrection without their permission!
Where do the Apostles in scripture baptize ANYONE against their will? Where do they baptize an infant who is incapable of repenting? Can you cite a single verse?
Of course not! Water baptism FOLLOWS the baptism of Jesus. Apart from the Baptism of Jesus in the Holy Spirit, uniting us to Christ and to His death and resurrection, water baptism IS MEANINGLESS. To suggest someone who has not repented and who doesn’t have any concept of what repentance could mean should be baptized in water, and thus saved, is to resort to magic and ritual instead of submitting to God.
“When you come to appear before me,
who has required of you
this trampling of my courts?
13 Bring no more vain offerings;
incense is an abomination to me.
New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations—
I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.
14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts
my soul hates;
they have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even though you make many prayers,
I will not listen;
your hands are full of blood.
16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes;
cease to do evil,
17 learn to do good;
seek justice,
correct oppression;
bring justice to the fatherless,
plead the widow’s cause.
18 “Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord:
though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red like crimson,
they shall become like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient,
you shall eat the good of the land;
20 but if you refuse and rebel,
you shall be eaten by the sword;
for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”
Israel could not be saved by physical birth either. Circumcision was meaningless for those who were hard of heart. Only repentance and faith could save the Israelite - or the “BELIEVER”. For no one can follow Christ if they do not believe Him...
Matthew 3:15: ...as a way to fulfill all righteousness" (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
Well whose righteousness?
I doubt you & I would question Jesus' personal pre-baptismal righteousness.
So right away we know all of those other Scriptural reasons given for our baptisms don't apply to Jesus' baptism, right? Things like...
* regeneration (John 3:5; Titus 3:5)
* deliverance from death -- salvation (1 Pet. 3:21; Mark 16:16)
* justification (1 Cor. 6:11)
* conscience being delivered (Heb. 10:22)
* new heart (Eze 36:25-27)
* forgiveness/remission of sins (Acts 2:38-39; Acts 22:16)
* Cleansing (Eph. 5:25-26; Zech 13:1)
Most commentators focus on Jesus' reason for baptism was "identification with sinners"...The Righteous One identifying with the unrighteous
Identification with sinners -- not only with baptism but his identification as a condemned man on the cross -- was best done as an adult. (I mean, God could have had His infant Son, Jesus, crucified as well as satisfactory atonement, obviously God wanted all of this to play out in front of a more public audience)
Because many of your posts aren't just saying, "No infant baptism." But "no baptism" at all.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
I don't see any water baptism there, do you...
You don't seem to feel the need to respond to any scripture that's posted to you...You just continue to bombard us with the few scripture that seems to suit your purpose...
You need to keep up with these thread posts vs. wasting my time having to give you basic info from the thread:
Iscool's posts
Post #165: No baptism
Post #164: WITHOUT WATER BAPTISM...
Post #164: WITHOUT BAPTISM!!!
Post #64: No baptism
Post #64: No baptism
Post #64: Again, no baptism
Post #64: Obviously, baptism wasn't profitable for Paul
If I read these 7 lines in three of Iscool's posts, and I was on the fence as to whether to get baptized or not, I'd take that it'd be so foreign to Scripture as to disregard it entirely.
And there was plenty of his posts I didn't cite that go beyond simply questioning infant baptism.
Exactly.
We find this concept you reference in NT passsages like John 8 where Jesus deals with the Pharisees and like John 1:
12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. (John 1)
And w/John 1:12, note that the underlying Greek word for "right" is essentially meaning "authority"...and this is similar to Matthew 28:18-20 where Jesus cites His all authority on heaven & earth & proceeds to authorize His disciples to baptize in the Authoritative Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Secondly, with v. 13, note that I bold-faced the phrase agreeing with that concept...but note also the last part:
Why do many Evangelicals militate vs. John 1:13 by equating being "born of God" with human decisions when John plainly says "NO" to that? (Please answer)
And where do passsages like Romans 9 fit into your theology?
15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 It does NOT, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.
What do you Evangelicals' decisional regenerators do anyway with those passages like John 1:12-13 & Rom. 9:15-16? Clip them with scissors from your Bibles?
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.