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
If you were unbaptized and in a coma on your death bed, and your wife was desperate to have you baptized and did so...Then yes, you are strictly incapable of repenting...at that moment.
But I'm not sure why you would ascribe that "incapacity" as being around forever if one day you came out of that coma.
Lazarus in the tomb was "incapable" of repenting, right? Did that somehow forestall His resurrection?
I've got good news for you:
#1. Infants don't stay infants forever
#2. Even adults being baptized don't likely repent once-and-for all. What adults & infants have in common is future repentance.
Those who keep harping on repentance act as if:
(a) Little children whom they refuse to baptize aren't capable of repentance (sorry...not so...I've seen little children repent....so it's on YOU to explain why your church won't baptize them if "repentance" were your key hurdle)
(b) Infants won't ever get to stage (a)!
So do you accord more patience to natural seed -- what we call sperm -- to unite in womb fertilization and wait 9 months to see that baby than to the seed of baptism? More patience that the imperishable seed of God's Word?
May I remind you that without God's Word, baptism is nothing.
May I remind you both are linked together in Eph. 5:25-26?
May I remind you that in the same epistle where Peter says "baptism saves you" (1 Pet. 3:20) he mentions in chapter 1: 23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.?
The living and enduring Word of God is likewise a seed!
What kind of gardener are you that you expect instant indicators from every seed you plant?
Any # of things listed as occurring in Scripture would have been meaningless for those hard of heart!
If the guy healed via Jesus putting mud on his eye had been hard-hearted, would have all been meaningless.
Had Samuel anointed a hard-hearted Saul with oil, it would have been meaningless and the HS would not have come upon him (1 Samuel).
If your church elders were applying James 5:14 to utilizing oil in a healing situation, but the person was hard-hearted, that, too could lead to a "meaningless" application of oil (tho not necessarily, for God may still have mercy/compassion on whom He will...see Rom. 9:15-16 as the James 5 emphasis includes how "the Lord is full of compassion and mercy" -- v. 11)
If an adult had a hard heart and was being baptized at your church in a kind of "going thru the motions" way...that too could eventually result in meaninglessness.
You see...based upon Scripture I am not locked in to your likely once-saved, always-saved notions.
You see...this is where my perception is that you don't even apply your arguments being used to other scenarios...and why I claim a high level of inconsistencies here...
Are you willing to sincerely address your OWN internal tensions here?
Or are you ONLY going to go on the attack?
Iscool, it's because of your unbecoming style to not want to even wrestle with the text itself.
Many of your posts attempt to treat single Scriptural verses as if they were -- individually as stand-alone verses -- intended to be doctrinal depositories of everything proper a seminary is suppose to be teaching.
I've got "news" for ya: That just ain't the case!
Now imagine if I started railing with multiple posts against the need to repent at all. If I took your method, I might cite:
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16)
Then I'd add some clever line like you weakly attempt, and say, "See! No mention of repentance! Just belief/baptism!"
So what? Because single cherry-picked verses fail to meet a "magic formula" that you keep trying to encapsulate, we write off the other Scriptures? In this kind of world, I'd guess we'd just have to ignore the rest of Scriptures & focus ONLY on belief/baptism.
Or, imagine I wanted to start railing vs. belief. I could take your single-verse cue, cite Acts 2:38:
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
And then could claim, "See! Repent/baptism to be forgiven & receive the Holy Spirit. No belief needed. Just repent & be baptized..."
Now what might you say to such sloppy microcosmic Scripture-mining?
This train is off the rails. I thought it was a discussion on the Sacrament of Baptism as found in the Bible?
Everything comes down to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Why is that?
Could there be a deep seated need for continuing revelation to clarify the confusion?
First of all this is a strawman if you think I believe different from you on this.
You keep arguing as if I was Roman Catholic.
I don't believe water is magically "holy" ... although I recognize that ONE of the meanings of the word "holy" is similar to consecrated -- meaning "set apart" (for a holy purpose).
I am in complete agreement that the Word of God...and the operation of the Holy Spirit is necessary.
The REAL difference is that you don't seem to think that God can, in conjunction with His Spirit and His Word, use...
...water
And yet, have you thrown out the Siloam miracle because of Jesus using mud and water?
Have you railed against Samuel using oil -- and insinuated it was "meaningless" oil -- when he used it to anoint Saul?
Are you consistent?
Do you attack Samuel for having used oil?
Do you go on the attack against the Old Testament conclusion that in, with, and thru this oil (1 Sam. 9:16; 10:1; 15:1) that indeed the Spirit came upon Saul? (1 Sam. 16:13)
And here is even the bigger question?
Why do you assume all these things are the acts of mere men, vs. God?
We are clearly told in Saul's case that Samuel anointed him (1 Sam. 9:16; 10:1; 15:1)...yet what ALSO does Holy Scripture tell us?
The LORD did the anointing!!! (1 Sam. 15:17)
The Lord anointed Saul thru Samuel utilizing oil.
Why is that SUCH a shocker for Evangelicals, who supposedly adhere to God's supernatural power???
Why do you rail against God's power being made operative in anything natural?
What? Did you have problems with God using a natural rib to create Eve?
Are you going to lecture us on how "ribs" are "meaningless" for actual creative purposes?
Perhaps because you keep posting like a Catholic?
>>Why do you rail against God's power being made operative in anything natural?<<
That's not the point. The point is that it's not the water or the oil. We don't focus on the mud and the spittle. We don't focus on the "Holy water". It has no intrinsic value.
Neither does the very dust God used to make Adam...yet He used it...the point is I keep emphasicing God’s power...God’s Word operating in power...and many of you are wanting to keep focusing on what MEN do...and what natural elements can’t do...I already know the Red Sea can’t save anyone...But I know God parting the Red Sea and placing His people in the midst of it as it sprayed down upon them...and then bninging them thru it ...DID save them
Who parted the red sea? Who does the healing?
Luther...Calvin...Zwingli...Wesley...all practiced infant baptism...most Protestants descended from one of these spiritual heritages...yet you would label the very reformers as Catholic?
They’re just reformers. Did any profess divine revelation?
>>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...”
No one can make a decision to follow Christ, baby or adult. The unbeliever is dead in trespasses and sins (what can dead men do?), the gospel is foolishness to unbelievers, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except through the Holy Spirit. When one “makes their decision” for Jesus, they only were able to do so because they believed before they “decided.”
This doesn’t mean they’re not saved, but many people are thereafter told to look back on their own decision as the assurance of their salvation. If you really decided for Christ, you’re saved! So one is to rest their assurance of salvation on the power of their own will’s decision?
I’ll rest my belief on what the scriptures say Jesus does through baptism:
Cleans you from iniquity, gives you a heart of flesh rather that of stone. Ezekiel 36:25-33
Makes you a disciple of Jesus. Matthew 28:19 (with teaching)
Forgives your sins. Acts 2:38 (With repentance)
Gives you the Holy Spirit. John 3:5, Acts 2:38.
Joins you with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Romans 6:2-5, Colossians 2:12.
Clothes you in Christ. Galatians 3:27.
Regenerates you. Titus 3:5.
Saves you. 1 Peter 3:21.
It’s all about Jesus. Nothing about me or my decision.
What a bunch of wingnuts...They misquote scripture and then ignore so much scripture it makes you think they are dishonest...
Mat_28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
There’s Matthew’s version...
Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
That’s Luke’s version...No babtism...
Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Conversion without baptism...
Act 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
No baptism...
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Act 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Again, no baptism...
Act 20:20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,
Act 20:21 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
Repentance and Faith...Obviously baptism wasn’t profitable for Paul...
There are some common things that are required for salvation...One is God’s grace...The next is repentance (turning to Jesus), and the last is Faith (not in a religion)...
Without all three of those, baptizing a baby is a waste of perfectly good holy water...
That’s not scripture interpreting scripture. That’s taking a bunch of clear verses about faith, pitting them against other clear verses about baptism, and trying to make the verses about baptism go away. No one doubts that it’s possible to be saved without being baptized - but that doesn’t mean what the scriptures say baptism is and does isn’t true.
A more intellectually honest way would be okay all of these verses are true somehow, now how is that?
“Are you going to lecture us on how “ribs” are “meaningless” for actual creative purposes?”
If someone argued that having a rib removed would automatically save you, then yeah...I’d call them on their statement.
Scripture is clear - without repentance, there is no entering the Kingdom of Heaven. You can imagine otherwise, but you cannot cite a single verse saying you are right.
If infant baptism did anything useful, it would be commanded. it wasn’t. Period.
There are plenty of people who are convinced it's impossible to be saved without water baptism...That's who this is written to...
It certainly is scripture interpreting scripture...If you follow the context the statement made is that entire households were baptized so that had to include babies...
These scriptures show that the entire households had to be believers to be baptized...No babies...
A baby doesn’t believe.
The seeds of faith were planted at that time.
Yet you have to BELIEVE as well in order to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
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.