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

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

[Colofornian]

Where do they baptize an infant who is incapable of repenting?

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?

[Colofornian]

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...

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?

[Colofornian]

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...

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?

[1010RD]

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?

[Colofornian]

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.

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?

[CynicalBear]

>>You keep arguing as if I was Roman Catholic.<<

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.

[Colofornian]

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

[CynicalBear]

Who parted the red sea? Who does the healing?

[Colofornian]

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?

[1010RD]

They’re just reformers. Did any profess divine revelation?

[StormPrepper]

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?

It's called "The Atonement of Jesus Christ". Because of the Atonement, little children were never spiritually dead. They are alive in Christ.

Moroni 8:
7 For immediately after I had learned these things of you I inquired of the Lord concerning the matter. And the word of the Lord came to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, saying:

8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.

12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.

14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.

15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.

16 Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear.

[CraigEsq]

>>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.

[CraigEsq]

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?

[Mr Rogers]

“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.

[Iscool]

No one doubts that it’s possible to be saved without being baptized

There are plenty of people who are convinced it's impossible to be saved without water baptism...That's who this is written to...

[Iscool]

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.

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...

[af_vet_1981]

You made a credible case that the evolving and emerging denominations, faith communities, and sects have abandoned the Orthodox tradition in favor of their own tradition.

[Bodleian_Girl]

A baby doesn’t believe.

[Biggirl]

The seeds of faith were planted at that time.

[Biggirl]

Yet you have to BELIEVE as well in order to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.