A thought or two about Infant Baptism

[ViaCrucis]

No one is denying infants of Jesus Christ, this is not the argument being made.

You don't view it that way. But that's because you don't believe the same things about baptism that we who baptize infants believe about baptism. As is demonstrated by what you say next.

The point of baptism is to make a decision to live for Christ-

And that's where we differ. That is not the point of baptism. The point of baptism is that it is new birth, union to Jesus Christ--His life, death, and resurrection--the washing away of all our sins, and so on and so forth.

John 3:5, Titus 3:5, Romans 6:3-4, Colossians 2:12-13, Galatians 3:27, Acts 2:38

washing away old sins and become a new creature in Christ. We are not saved by decisions others make for us, we our saved by the decisions we make and the direction in life we choose to follow,

And again we differ. We are NOT saved by decisions we make and the direction in life we choose to follow. We are saved by the grace of God who has intervened to rescue us, because without His gracious intervention and rescue we would choose our own damnation and destruction every time. Our choices, our decisions, our will is inwardly bent and broken, we are sinners through-and-through.

We can't choose to live righteously even if we wanted to, and apart from God we don't even want to. We want to be good, sure, but we don't want to live righteously, because that would mean denying ourselves and admitting that we can't.

Man dwells in the shadow of death, and in darkness despises the light because the light exposes our wicked deeds. That's the condemnation that stands against each and every one of us:

"And this is the condemnation: the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed." - John 3:19-20

Because we are slaves to sin, slaves to death, slaves to our sinful passions, slaves to the devil and all the elementary powers and principalities of this fallen age.

A captive does not "make a decision to be free", they are freed by an external agent, a rescuer, a savior.

Baptism is not something we do to make God happy, or to make a public profession of our own choices to live righteously and godly lives.

Baptism is the redemptive arm of God reaching down pulling us, yanking us, out of sin and death by bringing us into Christ, into the fullness of His Atoning Work and Person.

Infants cannot make any of these decisions, which is why there are no examples of infant baptism in scripture. We are told to follow the scriptures and there are reasons for it, it keeps us safe and on the narrow path.

Since the very premise you have in regard to baptism is unbiblical and false, then the conclusion is faulty.

And so I can only reiterate what I've already said: For those of us who baptize our children we see no reason to deny them Jesus Christ. Which is precisely what we'd be doing by refusing them access to this great treasure and gift which God has so lovingly provided us with. It would be like denying our children access to life saving medical care, it is unconscionable.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bbbbbbb]

You don't view it that way. But that's because you don't believe the same things about baptism that we who baptize infants believe about baptism. As is demonstrated by what you say next.



And that's where we differ. That is not the point of baptism. The point of baptism is that it is new birth, union to Jesus Christ--His life, death, and resurrection--the washing away of all our sins, and so on and so forth.

John 3:5, Titus 3:5, Romans 6:3-4, Colossians 2:12-13, Galatians 3:27, Acts 2:38



And again we differ. We are NOT saved by decisions we make and the direction in life we choose to follow. We are saved by the grace of God who has intervened to rescue us, because without His gracious intervention and rescue we would choose our own damnation and destruction every time. Our choices, our decisions, our will is inwardly bent and broken, we are sinners through-and-through.

We can't choose to live righteously even if we wanted to, and apart from God we don't even want to. We want to be good, sure, but we don't want to live righteously, because that would mean denying ourselves and admitting that we can't.

Man dwells in the shadow of death, and in darkness despises the light because the light exposes our wicked deeds. That's the condemnation that stands against each and every one of us:

"And this is the condemnation: the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed." - John 3:19-20

Because we are slaves to sin, slaves to death, slaves to our sinful passions, slaves to the devil and all the elementary powers and principalities of this fallen age.

A captive does not "make a decision to be free", they are freed by an external agent, a rescuer, a savior.

Baptism is not something we do to make God happy, or to make a public profession of our own choices to live righteously and godly lives.

Baptism is the redemptive arm of God reaching down pulling us, yanking us, out of sin and death by bringing us into Christ, into the fullness of His Atoning Work and Person.



Since the very premise you have in regard to baptism is unbiblical and false, then the conclusion is faulty.

And so I can only reiterate what I've already said: For those of us who baptize our children we see no reason to deny them Jesus Christ. Which is precisely what we'd be doing by refusing them access to this great treasure and gift which God has so lovingly provided us with. It would be like denying our children access to life saving medical care, it is unconscionable.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you for the excellent explanation of the Lutheran theology of baptism. Curiously, I attended a Presbyterian baptism of an infant yesterday morning. It happened to be the son of the pastor. The sermon yesterday was on the topic of baptism and although it was really very lengthy I came away from it much more confused about the current Presbyterian theology of baptism than I did before I attended the service. Insterestingly, the pastor perceives himself as upholding true, historic Reformed theology. Although that may be the case, it is not nearly as clear and understandable as your presentation regarding the Lutheran view of baptism.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Ok I was baptized at the age of 4 or 5 and had no idea what it meant. At the age of 38 I came to Christ and received the Holy Spirit. There are no negative consequences to baptizing an infant. I really don’t see what the problem is here.

Thats the issue, baptism is supposed to mean something, its part of our salvation according to the scripture Mark 16:16

An infant can't do the following...

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them ... teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19, 20).

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16).

“Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

“Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19).

The harm is its giving people false hope that if they were baptized as an infant, they will be saved no matter what, but that's not what the scriptures teach. I am glad as an adult you had better understanding what it means to make the commitment to Christ, saying goodbye to your life of sin and walking in newness with Christ.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Actually you don’t know that there is no example of infant baptism in the scriptures. You’re just assuming that the households that were recorded being baptized excluded babies.

According to scriptures the bible is for:

2 Tim 3: 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

And to be...

Psalms 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet
And a light to my path.

So I look for what the scripture teaches, instead of doesn't teach.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Actually you don’t know that there is no example of infant baptism in the scriptures.

This is a re-quote from from #272

Baptists and American Evangelicals allow women take Holy Communion and yet there is no "Bible record" allowing women to take holy communion. No example and no teaching. So why do they do it?

Hermenuetics.

There are two ways to interpret Scripture: That which is not prohibited is permitted OR that which not permitted is prohibited.

Baptists and American Evangelicals are schizophrenic. They interpret infant Baptism as "not specifically permitted, therefore prohibited" and the Lord's supper as "not specifically prohibited, therefore permitted."
--------
The whole tenor of the NT in hermenuetics is that which is not prohibited is permitted. The whole of Paul's argument on Christian liberty is he can "do all things" but all not "all things" are profitable.

We are always looking for prohibitions which is restrictive. Nowhere does Scripture prohibit infant being baptized.

I have notice a few people here on CF basically two sets of rules for interpreting Scripture. One for baptism and other for the rest of Scripture.

 

[bbbbbbb]

This is a re-quote from from #272

Baptists and American Evangelicals allow women take Holy Communion and yet there is no "Bible record" allowing women to take holy communion. No example and no teaching. So why do they do it?

Hermenuetics.

There are two ways to interpret Scripture: That which is not prohibited is permitted OR that which not permitted is prohibited.

Baptists and American Evangelicals are schizophrenic. They interpret infant Baptism as "not specifically permitted, therefore prohibited" and the Lord's supper as "not specifically prohibited, therefore permitted."
--------
The whole tenor of the NT in hermenuetics is that which is not prohibited is permitted. The whole of Paul's argument on Christian liberty is he can "do all things" but all not "all things" are profitable.

We are always looking for prohibitions which is restrictive. Nowhere does Scripture prohibit infant being baptized.

I have notice a few people here on CF basically two sets of rules for interpreting Scripture. One for baptism and other for the rest of Scripture.

Actually, John the Baptist was exceedingly restrictive about the folks he was willing to baptize. In fact, he initially refused to baptize his own cousin, Jesus Christ.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Actually, John the Baptist was exceedingly restrictive about the folks he was willing to baptize. In fact, he initially refused to baptize his own cousin, Jesus Christ.

Jesus reverses this by washing the feet of his disciples.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Jesus reverses this by washing the feet of his disciples.

Some Christian denominations have made foot washing a sacrament, on the order of other sacraments. After all, Jesus did command it.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

After all, Jesus did command it.

Nope. You are wrong. We make a distinction between descriptive statements and prescriptive statements of Scripture. Prescriptive statements are commands like ..."Do this in remembrance of me" or "Love thy neighbor." Descriptive statements of Scripture just describe what is going in the text. Basically historical narratives like "Jesus rode a donkey on palm Sunday" or "Mary and Joseph went to Egypt.

The foot washing narrative contains no COMMANDS. It is descriptive statement.

The problem comes when individuals make descriptive statements of Scripture....prescriptive. Like making Christians walk around in sandals and tunics because Jesus did. What about living in a mud hut? Riding donkeys instead of driving cars.

Jesus never commanded footwashing. Never.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Nope. You are wrong. We make a distinction between descriptive statements and prescriptive statements of Scripture. Prescriptive statements are commands like ..."Do this in remembrance of me" or "Love thy neighbor." Descriptive statements of Scripture just describe what is going in the text. Basically historical narratives like "Jesus rode a donkey on palm Sunday" or "Mary and Joseph went to Egypt.

The foot washing narrative contains no COMMANDS. It is descriptive statement.

The problem comes when individuals make descriptive statements of Scripture....prescriptive. Like making Christians walk around in sandals and tunics because Jesus did. What about living in a mud hut? Riding donkeys instead of driving cars.

Jesus never commanded footwashing. Never.

Please note that I do not have a dog in this race. I am not a sacramentalist. I am mere providing information regarding other Christian beliefs.

John 13:5 Then He *poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. 6 So He *came to Simon Peter. He *said to Him, “Lord, do You wash my feet?” 7 Jesus answered and said to him, “What I do you do not realize now, but you will understand hereafter.” 8 Peter *said to Him, “Never shall You wash my feet!” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” 9 Simon Peter *said to Him, “Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.” 10 Jesus *said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” 11 For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, “Not all of you are clean.”

12 So when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments and reclined at the table again, He said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you? 13 You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. 14 If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. 16 Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. 17 If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Please note that I do not have a dog in this race. I am not a sacramentalist. I am mere providing information regarding other Christian beliefs.

John 13:5 Then He *poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. 6 So He *came to Simon Peter. He *said to Him, “Lord, do You wash my feet?” 7 Jesus answered and said to him, “What I do you do not realize now, but you will understand hereafter.” 8 Peter *said to Him, “Never shall You wash my feet!” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” 9 Simon Peter *said to Him, “Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.” 10 Jesus *said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” 11 For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, “Not all of you are clean.”

12 So when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments and reclined at the table again, He said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you? 13 You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. 14 If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. 16 Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. 17 If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them.

I do apologize sincerely. Wow! Was I wrong. Due to the non-historical application of this practice I ASSUMED it was a descriptive statement of Scripture.

I accept your admonishment as a brother in Christ.

 

[Markie Boy]

OK - help me out here please.

I have a lot of respect for Lutherans and Catholics - some of the most wonderful people I know belong to each. And I was baptized Catholic as an infant, and don't have a burning desire to get re-baptized, even though I am no longer Catholic.

BUT - if infant baptism makes one part of the Body of Christ, washes away sin, and gives the Holy Spirit - why can't these children receive communion until they "make their first communion?" It just seems like a contradiction - you are a member or you are not. I see no grounds for partial membership anywhere.

There could be an argument that they are not old enough to "discern the Body" - but the first communion ceremony usually is at age 7 or 8 - and these kids have no idea what they are doing at that age.

So are they members or not?

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

OK - help me out here please.

I have a lot of respect for Lutherans and Catholics - some of the most wonderful people I know belong to each. And I was baptized Catholic as an infant, and don't have a burning desire to get re-baptized, even though I am no longer Catholic.

BUT - if infant baptism makes one part of the Body of Christ, washes away sin, and gives the Holy Spirit - why can't these children receive communion until they "make their first communion?" It just seems like a contradiction - you are a member or you are not. I see no grounds for partial membership anywhere.

There could be an argument that they are not old enough to "discern the Body" - but the first communion ceremony usually is at age 7 or 8 - and these kids have no idea what they are doing at that age.

So are they members or not?

Liturgically, the priest in an EO church baptizes, chrismates, and then communes infants when they are around 6 months old.

The west developed a practice where only a bishop could do the chrismation. So this separated the three sacraments from the priest.

From the Lutheran perspective, Paul says in 1 Cor 11 that, "A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup." So that is where Lutherans historically have confirmation around the age of 12-13 (at least when I was growing up). We had 2 years of confirmation classes where we (FYI, I grew up LCMS) memorized Luther's Small Catechism along with a good 100 Bible verses and then had a public examination in front of the congregation (Palm Sunday or the Sunday before that comes to mind, 40+ years ago makes the memory fuzzy). That way Easter was our first communion.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I do apologize sincerely. Wow! Was I wrong. Due to the non-historical application of this practice I ASSUMED it was a descriptive statement of Scripture.

I accept your admonishment as a brother in Christ.

Thank you. I accept your apology as my brother in Christ.

 

[eleos1954]

This is really the only rational position that can be taken concerning baptism. Otherwise, endless problems result such that non-baptized believers are excluded from salvation either through mere circumstances or through theological maneuverings. Curiously, the RCC has developed a range of alternate possibilities which allow non-baptized members the possibility of salvation.

Salvation is not up to the RCC regarding salvation or possibility thereof .... it's up to Jesus.

 

[eleos1954]

Incorrect.

“Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5)​

All Catholics are born again through this sacrament of Baptism.

The actual act of being water baptized does nothing in itself .... it is symbolic of what has already taken place in the heart (repentance). It's what it represents .... and it represents (symbolic of) the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Just as the blood of bulls and goats have no redeeming capabilities (symbolic as well) .... neither does water baptism.

Jesus saves .... not water, not animal sacrifices, not church sacraments.

John 3:6, Jesus explained to Nicodemus how this can be:

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

It is the spiritual re-birth that changes a person .... not water. Water baptism is symbolic of being spiritually reborn.

 

[Valletta]

The actual act of being water baptized does nothing in itself .... it is symbolic of what has already taken place in the heart (repentance). It's what it represents .... and it represents (symbolic of) the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Just as the blood of bulls and goats have no redeeming capabilities (symbolic as well) .... neither does water baptism.

Jesus saves .... not water, not animal sacrifices, not church sacraments.

John 3:6, Jesus explained to Nicodemus how this can be:



It is the spiritual re-birth that changes a person .... not water. Water baptism is symbolic of being spiritually reborn.

The Bible is very clear:

1 Pet 3:20-21 God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now . . ."

God saves us through the sacrament of Baptism, water is the sign of God's work.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Salvation is not up to the RCC regarding salvation or possibility thereof .... it's up to Jesus.

That was not my point. My point was that the RCC has a range of options regarding the rite of baptism.

 

[ViaCrucis]

OK - help me out here please.

I have a lot of respect for Lutherans and Catholics - some of the most wonderful people I know belong to each. And I was baptized Catholic as an infant, and don't have a burning desire to get re-baptized, even though I am no longer Catholic.

BUT - if infant baptism makes one part of the Body of Christ, washes away sin, and gives the Holy Spirit - why can't these children receive communion until they "make their first communion?" It just seems like a contradiction - you are a member or you are not. I see no grounds for partial membership anywhere.

There could be an argument that they are not old enough to "discern the Body" - but the first communion ceremony usually is at age 7 or 8 - and these kids have no idea what they are doing at that age.

So are they members or not?

To understand that requires some historical unpacking. @PsaltiChrysostom provided some excellent explanation here.

Some things I would add:

There have been questions, concerning children and the Lord's Supper, some Lutherans have advocated for something closer to the Eastern practice where as soon as a child has been baptized they are prepared to receive. Though most Lutherans would still argue that a child should be able to have some sense of what is happening, and thus it is up to parental discretion as to when--though this can vary extensively based on denomination and even on the congregational level. Some may insist on Confirmation age, others that it really just is up to the parents to make that judgment for their child based on the fact that they know their own children and are talking with them. So a child's First Communion could be somewhere between the ages of around 5 to 14. It just depends. And, also, as noted, there are Lutherans who advocate that First Communion should be available as soon as a child is baptized, and thus allow the communing of infants.

So basically Lutherans can be be said to have three different stances:

1. Only children who have gone through Confirmation may receive the Lord's Supper.
2. Children may receive if the parents believe the child is ready.
3. And more rarely, that Infant communion should be allowed.

I don't know if there is a de facto right answer on this question. As such it seems to me like this is the sort of thing that really should come down to pastors, parents, and the congregation rather than create a universal rule that all must follow.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BNR32FAN]

Thats the issue, baptism is supposed to mean something, its part of our salvation according to the scripture Mark 16:16

An infant can't do the following...

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them ... teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19, 20).

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16).

“Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

“Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19).

The harm is its giving people false hope that if they were baptized as an infant, they will be saved no matter what, but that's not what the scriptures teach. I am glad as an adult you had better understanding what it means to make the commitment to Christ, saying goodbye to your life of sin and walking in newness with Christ.

That’s a completely different subject. I could just as easily say that people shouldn’t proclaim that Jesus is God because they could say that and not have a true conversion or they could still fall away and not be saved. They could think that they’re saved because they proclaimed that Jesus is Lord and not have a true heart felt conversion. Your argument is weak because it’s not the baptism itself that causes a problem just like the person’s proclamation that Jesus is Lord wasn’t the cause of his problem. It’s a false theology that is the root of the problem you’re presenting not the baptism itself.