Is infant baptism unbiblical?

Jacque_Pierre22 · Oct 6, 2022

Daniel9v9 said:
Lutherans value tradition, but tradition must be governed by God's Word. Our Roman Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and to a lesser degree, Anglican friends, however, believe in the doctrine of Holy Tradition, which is to say that tradition and Scripture are of equal authority. They are not. For first of all, there are many strands of tradition, and secondly, it's not clear what parts of tradition are supposed to be from God and what is supposed to be from man. The Bible, on the other hand, is clear, for it is entirely God's Word.

So, we argue on the basis of Scripture alone, but we can also show examples from Church history if it's useful.

You should read "The Lost History of Christianity" by Philip Jenkins. There is just as much apostolic claim for Lutherans, Anglicans in history as there are for Orthodoxy and Roman Catholics. Also basic Egyptology would help to understand. Most preservation of ancient texts could not happen outside of Egypt because of the climate, so what is preserved is only a tiny sample of the totality that existed. There were probably hundreds of church fathers we don't know about.

Markie Boy · Oct 6, 2022

MonaphychosConstantine said:
You should read "The Lost History of Christianity" by Philip Jenkins. There is just as much apostolic claim for Lutherans, Anglicans in history as there are for Orthodoxy and Roman Catholics. Also basic Egyptology would help to understand. Most preservation of ancient texts could not happen outside of Egypt because of the climate, so what is preserved is only a tiny sample of the totality that existed. There were probably hundreds of church fathers we don't know about.

Super interesting - thank you! And I don't doubt it. I may check it out. Does the book do any reference on Infant Baptism?

Jacque_Pierre22 · Oct 6, 2022

no not really just some interesting facts here and there about baptism and the eucharist in general but not a deep discussion on the sacraments; mentions Yahballaha III

Daniel9v9 · Oct 6, 2022

Gregory95 said:
well it dont make sense ...the baby dont understand why they are getting wet...baptism by WATER is public display of faith and their is the baptism by FIRE ie Holy Spirit ....thats when you are born again...

Can I invite you to read my post #9?

Daniel9v9 · Oct 6, 2022

MonaphychosConstantine said:
You should read "The Lost History of Christianity" by Philip Jenkins. There is just as much apostolic claim for Lutherans, Anglicans in history as there are for Orthodoxy and Roman Catholics. Also basic Egyptology would help to understand. Most preservation of ancient texts could not happen outside of Egypt because of the climate, so what is preserved is only a tiny sample of the totality that existed. There were probably hundreds of church fathers we don't know about.

Hey, thanks for the tip! I've studied church history, but I haven't read Jenkin's work. I can say that I agree with his assertion and your point. We can classify what I consider the historical bodies to be Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Anglican. Maybe a case could be made for some conservative strains of old Reformed churches, though generally, I think the Reformed fall on the radical side of the Reformation (and maybe in two groups: something approaching conservative and something rather radical, like the Anabaptists).

Anyway, I remember what was a surprise to me, is that all of the historical bodies are very selective about church history and early church fathers. I always had the idea that either the entire early church was essentially either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, but this is absolutely not true. And this is very problematic when we consider the doctrine of Holy Tradition as held by our friends. But in this, the Lutheran system is very robust, for, as said before, while we value tradition, it is governed by God's Word. So, to put it practically, we don't have to pretend like there is an unbroken line of perfect doctrinal unity, which history clearly shows us doesn't exist, and instead let Scriptures be the rule and norm for everything. So in this sense, not only can we be selective of the church fathers, we should be! And we can embrace doctrine that conforms with God's Word, and reject that which doesn't, and use our freedom in Christ to keep or not keep whatever is neither commanded nor forbidden by God in His written Word.

Very simply, if you don't mind the snark, I think it's accurate to say that the Lutheran Church is essentially the Roman Catholic Church, except for all the unbiblical stuff.

Daniel9v9 · Oct 6, 2022

Markie Boy said:
A great balance. This is what is keeping me asking about Lutheranism. When I was in Catholicism I saw many traditions that were mandatory, but not Biblical or Apostolic.

On the other end, when I brought up the Didache, to baptist pastor, he had never even heard of it. It's the most essential writing outside the Bible I think when it comes to church history - yet seminaries would give degrees without ever having touched on it? And they too have developed their own traditions that are not Biblical or historical, like "once saved always saved".

I guess I think history and tradition help us understand scripture.

Yeah, as mentioned before, I was a Pentecostal, and I remember having a strong aversion to church history and creeds (which ironically, is a tradition I inherited!). So it put me in a weird place where if someone told me about the Didache, I would have undoubtedly altogether rejected it, but at the same time happily embrace whatever a mega-church leader would write.

What I really appreciate about the Lutheran system, at its core, is that it's a humble system in the sense that it embraces holy mysteries wherever they are found. It speaks clearly about the things God's Word speaks clearly about, but wherever Scriptures present us with something that is higher than reason, the Lutheran system says: "We will echo God's Word and go no further." Whereas the other theological systems have a tendency to wrestle with it in a way that goes beyond Scripture, and they do that by relying on reason, tradition, direct revelation, or cultural influence.

Anyway, if I can ever be of service to you — if you'd like to have chat, I'd be very glad to! God bless!

FaithT · Oct 6, 2022

Daniel9v9 said:
Yeah, as mentioned before, I was a Pentecostal, and I remember having a strong aversion to church history and creeds (which ironically, is a tradition I inherited!). So it put me in a weird place where if someone told me about the Didache, I would have undoubtedly altogether rejected it, but at the same time happily embrace whatever a mega-church leader would write.

What I really appreciate about the Lutheran system, at its core, is that it's a humble system in the sense that it embraces holy mysteries wherever they are found. It speaks clearly about the things God's Word speaks clearly about, but wherever Scriptures present us with something that is higher than reason, the Lutheran system says: "We will echo God's Word and go no further." Whereas the other theological systems have a tendency to wrestle with it in a way that goes beyond Scripture, and they do that by relying on reason, tradition, direct revelation, or cultural influence.

Anyway, if I can ever be of service to you — if you'd like to have chat, I'd be very glad to! God bless!

I have a Didache Catholic Bible that I haven’t even read with the exception of a snippet or two.

Daniel9v9 · Oct 6, 2022

FaithT said:
I have a Didache Catholic Bible that I haven’t even read with the exception of a snippet or two.

Ah, yeah. The thing we're talking about is an ancient text called the Didache. The Didache Bible is something modern and entirely different, but I can appreciate that it's confusing when the same names are being used! The word "didache" means "teaching", so it's a very generic word used for different things. In most cases, though, when people say "the Didache", they mean the ancient Christian text.

Daniel9v9 · Oct 7, 2022

Gregory95 said:
baptism- yes it does not forbid it however i ask which baptism are you speaking of because it sounds like your talking about both when we are strictly speaking on water baptism not being born again and reciving the Holy Spirit (baptism by fire)

Who can receive Baptism- we agree if a child is old enough to understand of course let them have a water baptism

God wishes to save children-AMEN!

The Gospel is for all-AMEM!

One must be born of water and the Spirit- baptism by water and baptism by fire ie when you get the Holy Spirit...Matthew 3:11 - I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire

Children are to be raised in the faith- raise a child in the ways of truth so he dont depart -via Bible

Baptism and its relationship to circumcision-paul says TRUE circumcision is of the HEART and the physical was just a outward testament...water baptism is physical testament of faith bapism of fire is reciving the Holy Spirit and your NEW HEART

I'm quite familiar with the Pentecostal theological system, so I can appreciate that it seems like I'm conflating two things, but I'm not. Let me walk through this in very simple terms.

How many baptisms are there for the Christian according to God's Word?
One, not two.
Ephesians 4:5-6: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

What is this one Baptism?
The Baptism in the triune name of God as instituted by Jesus.
Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

How is this Baptism applied?
By water and God's Word.
Acts 8:38: "And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptised him."

What does God promise through this Baptism?
Forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:38: "And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptised 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."

So what is the Baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire that John talks about?
It's the one Christian Baptism that John prepared for. Not a second or additional Baptism or something apart from, or above the Baptism that Jesus institutes, for there is only one Baptism.

Does Jesus say that John's Baptism is with water and that His Baptism is with the Holy Spirit and no water?
No, He says in the one Baptism, we are born of water and the Holy Spirit.
John 3:5: "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Does "water" in John 3:5 mean natural birth or signify something other than water?
No, it means plain water. Hence the eunuch in Acts 8, and every Christian since, is baptised with water.

Is the water magical or special in any way?
No, it's plain water, but it's God's promise attached to the water that makes it a Baptism. God delivers His promise by means of water in a similar way to how He heals Naaman's leprosy in 2 Kings 5. That is, it's not the water that healed Naaman, but God's promise attached to the water.

Is the gift of speaking in tongues a guaranteed sign that follows the so-called Spirit-Baptism as something apart from the so-called Water-Baptism?
No, this is a gift given to some, not to all. Therefore it cannot be a sure testimony of the so-called Spirit-Baptism.
1 Corinthians 12:29-30: "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?"
Note: In case it's not clear, the answers to all of these questions are no.

Do we have any examples from the early church that testify to what God's Word says regarding Baptism?
Yes, an overwhelming amount! Just to give you one very clear example: The ancient Christian text "the Didache" (of which I'm making a commentary) was put together sometime towards the end of the New Testament period. This text only knows of one Baptism, and this one Baptism is applied with water.
I've published a modernised text online here if you'd like to read it. See Chapter 7: The Didache | THE REJECTED STONE

Note: The Didache or any of the ancient Christian texts are not God's Word or equal to it. However, they can serve us as great testimonies of God's Word, for in many places they echo the Scriptures and help us understand how the early church understood God's Word.

Conclusion
Although in Pentecostal theology a distinction is being made between water and Spirit Baptism, this is a distinction not known in Scriptures. It's also a very modern distinction which has its roots in the Azusa Street Revival. I think this fact alone is worth serious contemplation. Basically, if you're up for a challenge, consider this: Did the Christian Church get Baptism wrong for 2000 years and then finally receive the true understanding of it around 1910? Or can you find the distinction between water and Spirit Baptism before that?

I was born and raised Pentecostal, and I have family who are still devout conservative Pentecostal. But I'm confident that if we read everything God's Word has to say about Baptism, it should make it clear to us that it is not a simple outward expression of faith.

Jacque_Pierre22 · Oct 7, 2022

I recommend reading more stuff about Lutheranism such as by Jordan Cooper, Jack Kilcrease

Baptism is not the Replacement of Circumcision

Tigger45 · Oct 7, 2022

MonaphychosConstantine said:
I recommend reading more stuff about Lutheranism such as by Jordan Cooper, Jack Kilcrease

Baptism is not the Replacement of Circumcision

Jordan Cooper is definitely one of my favorites :oldthumbsup:

Markie Boy · Oct 7, 2022

Daniel9v9 said:
Yeah, as mentioned before, I was a Pentecostal, and I remember having a strong aversion to church history and creeds (which ironically, is a tradition I inherited!). So it put me in a weird place where if someone told me about the Didache, I would have undoubtedly altogether rejected it, but at the same time happily embrace whatever a mega-church leader would write.

What I really appreciate about the Lutheran system, at its core, is that it's a humble system in the sense that it embraces holy mysteries wherever they are found. It speaks clearly about the things God's Word speaks clearly about, but wherever Scriptures present us with something that is higher than reason, the Lutheran system says: "We will echo God's Word and go no further." Whereas the other theological systems have a tendency to wrestle with it in a way that goes beyond Scripture, and they do that by relying on reason, tradition, direct revelation, or cultural influence.

Anyway, if I can ever be of service to you — if you'd like to have chat, I'd be very glad to! God bless!

Thank you!

Jacque_Pierre22 · Oct 7, 2022

no water baptism coincides temporally with repentence and the receiving of the holy spirit for the elect, unless you resist the holy spirit, but you don't need to be able to process complex thoughts; faith is not something that can be reasoned to attain. You receive justifying faith in the same way that you learn to talk fluently in the first couple of years. It happens without thought. This is called "sacramental realism." Thats why John the Baptist said repent & be baptized because those people needed to receive the holy spirit. You can receive the HS either by the Word or baptism. God has multiple means of grace. Your interpretation requires you to constantly rebaptize because your never sure of your salvation and are looking inwardly for a special sign, leading to a works based salvation, whether in a Roman Catholic sense or a Calvinistic one it results in the same thing.

Daniel9v9 · Oct 7, 2022

Gregory95 said:
i am not protastant...i do not divide Christ i believe the Bible i believe Christ and i work to follow Him you wish to show me your correct i need Scripture the Bible never tells you to do somthing WITHOUT telling you to do somthing

okay so question how does one who undertakes a water baptism as infant know thwir old heart from its new heart and is thus the proof of their salvation? the Bible is clear (unless you believe infants without baptism will be cast into abyss) before i was saved i was a national socalist a true agent of satan perverting the Word of God to promote evil ideolagy....CHRIST pulled me out of the darkness....where there was hate now light, anger now love ,unending hopelessness now hopeful.

Hey, God be praised that you are in Christ! Thank you for sharing your background. We rejoice in that Jesus suffered and died for you, was raised for you, and adopted you, and that His love and mercy endure forever!

Now, this question you ask comes out of an Arminian theological framework. I know this is confusing, but if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying you're non-denominational or "just Christian", but it's good to appreciate that these churches that identify as such are loose Baptist-Charismatic in their theology. And in this system, Baptism of children doesn't make sense. But is this system of thought Biblically accurate in all its ways? No. For Baptism is not something we do for ourselves or for God. It's not a work that we do to merit salvation. Rather, it's God's gift to us. And as such, we are not to deny children God's grace, for He says: "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."

I answer this a lot more fully in post #9.

Gregory95 said:
john thr baptist LITTERALY SAID Luke 3:16

John answered them all, “I baptize you with WATER. But ONE who is more powerful than I WILL come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He WILL baptize you with the Holy Spirit AND fire

the ONE baptism is the fire baptism the water baptism is public profession of faith...when wad the Holy Spirit given to disciples pre water baptism or much time AFTER....

I think if you read my post (#32) again, you can see how this is incorrect and that I already responded to it. But the short of it is this: Jesus institutes one Baptism, and that is in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is the Baptism that John the Baptist prepared for. And this Baptism is applied with water and God's Word, worked by the Holy Spirit. And by it we receive the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Or to think of in a different way, if you go through what I wrote in post #32, at what point do you disagree?

Or how about this? Where in the Bible does it say that the so-called water-Baptism is a "public profession of faith"? Although this is commonly preached in our day, it's (1) a new teaching and (2) it's not found in the Bible.

What the Bible does say about Baptism, on the other hand, is regarding faith, salvation, forgiveness of sins, a birth from above, the gift of the Holy Spirit, entering the kingdom of God, being baptised into Jesus’ death, a good conscience, a circumcision of Christ, a washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, a baptism into Christ, putting on Christ. This is powerful language and very far from the expression of a "public profession of faith."

The bottom line is this: Instead of listening to me on one hand or non-denominational/charismatic preachers on the other, simply read everything God's Word has to say about Baptism. And I think the two things we should always bear in mind is that (1) there is one Baptism, and (2) in the great commission, our Lord Jesus Christ say we are to be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

To make it convenient for you, here I've searched for "Baptism":
BibleGateway - Keyword Search: Baptism

And here's a search for "Baptize":
BibleGateway - Keyword Search: Baptize

The peace of Christ to you!

Markie Boy · Oct 8, 2022

Totally agree - most non-denominational churches seem to be loose Baptist-Charismatic - the ones I have been to. One I have been to has a great conservative pastor, that is a great teacher - the other is pretty loose/modern, and I totally avoid. They seem mostly "Left Behind Series" type dispensational, and when I mentioned that way of thought was just invented less than 200 years ago, it didn't go over so well.

Just chucking all of church history, picking up a Bible and starting from scratch, just doesn't seem to work out so good. Once Saved Always Saved fits this category too.

I am still learning, and Infant Baptism and the Real Presence in communion are really the only two things I am trying to get my head around yet. But I am coming out of a Catholic setting where I knew things were out of line, so I guess I am very cautious going forward. Thanks for taking time to explain!

Daniel9v9 · Oct 10, 2022

Gregory95 said:
will pray on this and continue to study , as for the public profession of faith will look into more however no one tought me that from studing i read what John thr baptist did what he said what Christ disciples did and said and what Christ Himself said when the children were brought to Christ did He say baptize them or did He bless them? i just dont think we need to be adding anything "dont hinder children from coming to Me" when i read that how does this not mean a child whos choosing Christ somthing a infant who understands nothing cant do right?

God's blessings to you in your study of His Word! The Word of God is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path; they endure forever!

In the passage "Let the little children come to me", our Lord's words in connection to the blessing of them are important. Of the children, He says: "To such belongs the kingdom of heaven." And in John 3:5 He says: "Amen, amen. I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." So, we can observe: (A) The kingdom of heaven is spoken of in context of Baptism, and (B) it's spoken of as a new birth or a birth from above. This is to say, just as our natural life is a gift to us, so too is life in Christ a gift to us.

Now, regarding the phrase "little children", there are two things worth considering:

(1) Scriptures tell us that the children were brought to Jesus. It reads: "Then children were brought to [Jesus] that He might lay His hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people ..." I think it's safe to understand that the "people" here implies parents, other family, guardians, and nurses etc. Basically, whoever cared for the little children, most of which, were probably mothers and fathers. So the children were brought and, at least, for the most part, did not go on their own accord. Basically, the text says that it was generally by the will of the parents.

(2) The Greek word Matthew uses in his Gospel means "little children", but the word Luke uses in Luke 18:15 means "babies". This is the same word that Peter uses in 1 Peter 2:2 where he writes: "Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation." So "little children" means anything from babies to small talking children. So the "age of reason" teaching, which some people hold to be something like 12 years old, is contrary to what we find here in the Bible. Not only does the Bible not contain an "age of reason", but when Jesus invites the little children to come to Him, we learn that this is or includes infants.

Simply, Jesus says His love and grace is for all, and He does not exclude but welcomes little children into His kingdom. And it's by faith in Christ and Baptism that we become members of that kingdom.

God bless!

John Owen · Oct 10, 2022

Laestadian05 said:
Infant baptism is not mentioned in the Bible neither is anyone saved by baptism only faith alone saves so is infant baptism unbiblical?

It is unbiblical because it is not commanded. There are some instances of baptism that are interpreted by some people as including infants, but it is not even clear in those cases. Every time there are instances, it is after certain people believed, and because infants are too young to make conscious choices, specifically to believe in Christ, they would not be included.

Daniel9v9 · Oct 10, 2022

Gregory95 said:
1 Peter 2:2 is about new Christians not babies....1 Peter 2:2
1 Putting away therefore all wickedness, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, 2 as newborn babes, long for the spiritual milk which is without guile, that ye may grow thereby unto salvation; 3 if ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious: 4 unto whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, but with God elect, precious, 5 ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

Yes, that’s right. But Peter is saying, in short: “Christians, be like newborn infants.” The word which is translated as “newborn infants” is the same word used by Luke when he writes about the little children that was brought to Jesus. Do you see?

Daniel9v9 · Oct 10, 2022

John Owen said:
It is unbiblical because it is not commanded. There are some instances of baptism that are interpreted by some people as including infants, but it is not even clear in those cases. Every time there are instances, it is after certain people believed, and because infants are too young to make conscious choices, specifically to believe in Christ, they would not be included.

What you’ve described here, the idea of making a decision for Jesus, is certainly the Arminian position, which I too used to hold to. However, if we read everything Scriptures say about Baptism, we can find that it’s not something we do for ourselves or for God, but something God does for us. And as such, who are we to deny children God’s grace?

Consider the language God’s Word uses of being “dead in sin” and being “born again / born from above”. This is language that doesn’t fit into the Arminian framework. It is pure and unmerited grace, given to adults and children alike, for both a child and an adult are equally helpless to work their own salvation as they are both dead in sin.

If you’re interested, I’ve written an overview of infant Baptism in post #9.

ViaCrucis · Oct 10, 2022

John Owen said:
It is unbiblical because it is not commanded. There are some instances of baptism that are interpreted by some people as including infants, but it is not even clear in those cases. Every time there are instances, it is after certain people believed, and because infants are too young to make conscious choices, specifically to believe in Christ, they would not be included.

Salvation isn't about a conscious choice. That's Decisionism. The Scriptures say that we are saved by grace alone through faith, and that this is not of ourselves but rather God's gift, not of works. A conscious choice is a work, and turns God's gift and work of faith into a human work. God doesn't rely on us to save ourselves, but actually saves us. He proactively gives and works faith through His means of grace. It is His word that gives faith, so we read in Romans ch. 10 where Paul says that one cannot call on the name of the Lord unless they hear, and they cannot hear unless it is preached, and it is not preached unless one is sent to preach. So it is the Church's Great Commission, which Christ gave her in Matthew 28 to make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit; and in Mark 16 to preach the Gospel to every creature, and in Luke 24 that forgiveness of sins be proclaimed in His name to all nations that God reaches the lost and gives them faith.

The Apostle Paul says that one plants and another waters, but it is God who gives the growth (1 Corinthians 3:5-7), the one who plants and waters are merely servants, but it is God who does the work of actually converting and giving faith, creating faith, and working faith through His means.

This is why the great and central doctrine of the Reformation is that we are justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in and on account of Christ alone. God alone does the work to justify us, for He sent His only-begotten Son that whosoever trusts Him shall not perish but have life everlasting (John 3:16), at the time of His choosing He sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, born of a woman, born under the Law (Romans 8:3, Galatians 4:4) to put to death sin and death. By His one and only satisfaction and perfect obedience He brought justification to all (Romans 5:18), so that through faith in Him alone is one justified (Romans 5:1), for grace reigns through the righteousness of Jesus Christ alone to eternal life in Jesus Christ (Romans 5:21).

So we can confess, and indeed boast in the cross of Jesus Christ (Galatians 6:14) that through Baptism we have been buried with Christ and having been buried with Him raised up together with Him to new life (Romans 6:3-4) and that this same baptism saves us, not as though it were merely washing dirt off our skin, but rather being the pledge of a new conscience to God by the resurrection of Christ (1 Peter 3:21); whereby our sins indeed have been truly forgiven and we have received the Holy Spirit as the pure grace of God (Acts of the Apostles 2:38). Having been born again by this birth of water and Spirit (John 3:3-5, Titus 3:5), having been cleansed by the washing of water with the word (Ephesians 5:26). A new and better circumcision, one made without hands (Colossians 2:11-13).

In light of all these things, why would we deny to our children Jesus Christ who says, "Do not hinder the little children from coming unto Me, for to such as these belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:14) they are part of the "all nations" to whom we are called to baptize and preach the Gospel. Christ did not come for only some sinners and not others, but rather He came for all sinners (1 Timothy 1:15), for He is the Savior of all men, especially those that believe (1 Timothy 4:10), for Christ made propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

In all of these things the Church has, from the very beginning, always welcomed infants and children into the Church. Because God does not discriminate against little children, but is the God who is generous and superabundant in His mercy for all, that all might come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). The Gospel of Jesus is Christ is for everyone. For little babies and wicked tyrants all the same.

-CryptoLutheran

Is infant baptism unbiblical?

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

†

†

†

Well-Known Member

†

†

Active Member

Pray like your life depends on it!

Well-Known Member

Active Member

†

Well-Known Member

†

Well-Known Member

†

†

Confessional Lutheran

Similar threads