A thought or two about Infant Baptism

[BNR32FAN]

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

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

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.

 

[bbbbbbb]

NOT a range of alternate possibilities. Rome no longer holds to limbus infantum. Only ONE possibilities for Rome. Baptize. Wrong here.

Baptize, yes, but how? As I pointed out above, Rome has allowed various alternatives to baptism by immersion in water for centuries. Baptism by Desire is simply one alternative.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That is the problem. These things, in and of themselves, are hardly bad, but only become bad when they are misunderstood and misinterpreted. The same could be said for reading the Bible. The Bible is a great book and, we believe, inspired by God Himself. That said, many have been led astray from a pure faith in Jesus Christ either through their personal reading or through erroneous teaching from others.

I’m a firm believer that everyone should read the Bible for themselves.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭1‬:‭16‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[BNR32FAN]

There are tons of things not forbidden in the scripture. The usage of tobacco is not forbidden, nor the use of narcotics, nor the owning of slaves, nor polygamy. The list goes on and on and on. Just because something is not forbidden hardly makes it allowable.

But none of those are even mentioned in the scriptures. Baptism is. You’re comparing things that are obviously harmful to infant baptism that is never harmful.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I’m a firm believer that everyone should read the Bible for themselves.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭1‬:‭16‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

I also believe in personal Bible reading. As with baptism, I do not see it as optional for a believer. I also see engagement with a body of believers as non-optional. I will also grant that there are circumstances where these things may not be possible, but for the ordinary Christian these things are essential.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Baptize, yes, but how? As I pointed out above, Rome has allowed various alternatives to baptism by immersion in water for centuries. Baptism by Desire is simply one alternative.

I didn’t know about baptism by desire that’s an interesting doctrine.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I didn’t know about baptism by desire that’s an interesting doctrine.

In antiquity, especially during the time of the persecutions, that there would be people who desired to be Christians, were in the process of catechism (catechumens), or otherwise were going through the conversion process. But circumstances prevented them from receiving baptism. For example a catechumen being arrested and imprisoned, then put to death during persecution--they were catechumens and therefore had not yet received baptism. But it seemed insane to suggest, therefore, that this person who just suffered a martyr's death for the sake of Christ would somehow be deficient in salvation. Thus "baptism of desire", and also "baptism by blood", were ways of putting into words the idea that God is not callous, strict, and deprivating of His grace, but that in God's absolute power and grace we can be confident that He who moves and acts through the ordinary means of baptism has still moved and acted in the person who--had they not been denied access to baptism--would have been baptized.

Lutherans don't normally talk about "baptism of desire" or "baptism by blood"; but we do talk about the distinction between God's ordered power and God's absolute power. Martin Luther provides, in a piece of personal correspondence with one of his parishioners, an analogy. Luther points to the example of fire, that we see the ordered power of God concerning fire in that fire burns. If I reach my hand into the open flame, It burns me and causes me injury, fire burns; and yet we see in the book of Daniel that Daniel's three companions were thrown into a fiery furnace for refusing to worship the king--but they were uninjured, the fire did not burn. That the fire did not burn is God's absolute power--He who created fire to burn can also make fire not burn.

Baptism is part of God's ordered power or means, the Scriptures expressly show us what baptism is for and what baptism accomplishes, and that God acts and moves through the Sacrament to accomplish what He has promised: His word does not return to Him void, but does what He sent it to do (Isaiah 55:11). So can we say that baptism saves? Yes, because Scripture says it (1 Peter 3:21); does that mean that simply not being baptized means we aren't or can't be saved? Of course not, Scripture does not teach that, but instead teaches that whoever "believes and is baptized is saved, but whoever does not believe is condemned" (Mark 16:16). Does baptism save? Yes. Does not being baptized mean we are condemned? No.

What this really means is this: Salvation is always God's power and work, and He has provided us with knowledge of the ordinary means by which He does this, that we might look to them and hold confidently to His promises. For in Word and Sacrament God has provided external promise which we can depend upon because God's promises are irrevocable. But it is not as though God can't do and can't act however He so wills.

So, then, must a person have faith in Christ, be baptized, to be a Christian and an heir of salvation? Yes. Thus say the Scriptures.

Does that mean a person who has never heard of Christ, or a child who died in miscarriage, or many other possible horrible and often tragic scenarios become excluded from the hope of salvation that is in Jesus Christ for the whole world? Of course not. But we can know where God does act and speak, but we cannot know what we do not know--and thus must rely entirely on faith in God's grace, goodness, and judgment on all things. For in the end, God alone is Judge and Savior, and glory be to Him that He is the One who judges the living and the dead, for He is exceedingly merciful.

The concepts of "baptism of desire"/"baptism by blood" can be, in that sense, seen as fitting into that larger paradigm of the distinction between the ordered and absolute power of God. The real point being: We can't put God in a box, we can't say what God can't or won't do, because we're not Him. We can, however, speak of His promises, speak concerning what He says in His word, and rest confidently in the Most Merciful and Loving Savior.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

nor the owning of slaves

Slavery is a dicey issue in the NT. There was a limited servitude apart of the OT civil law up to six years.

In the NT, slavery broadly transgresses the commandment "You shall not steal." Christians are forbidden to be apart of the slave trade (I Tim 1:10). The technical NT term is men-stealing (ἀνδραποδιστής).

Furthermore, slavery is condemned in James 5:4-6. Theft of labor is one of two sins that "cry out to God" as particularly heinous, with the other...murder....of Abel in Gen. 4. Slavery destroys human creativity. God creates all people with different skills, talents, abililties, intelligence, etc. and wants all people to flourish with each are uniquely given. Human creativity parrots Divine creativity. When a slave is forced to forfeit all the good gifts God gave him in Creation, it cries out to God as injustice.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Slavery is a dicey issue in the NT. There was a limited servitude apart of the OT civil law up to six years.

In the NT, slavery broadly transgresses the commandment "You shall not steal." Christians are forbidden to be apart of the slave trade (I Tim 1:10). The technical NT term is men-stealing (ἀνδραποδιστής).

Furthermore, slavery is condemned in James 5:4-6. Theft of labor is one of two sins that "cry out to God" as particularly heinous, with the other...murder....of Abel in Gen. 4. Slavery destroys human creativity. God creates all people with different skills, talents, abililties, intelligence, etc. and wants all people to flourish with each are uniquely given. Human creativity parrots Divine creativity. When a slave is forced to forfeit all the good gifts God gave him in Creation, it cries out to God as injustice.

Slavery in the Old Testament is a different story entirely with specific commandments related to it. The principle issue with the Gibeonites (Joshua 9) was not that they were enslaved to the Israelites, but that they had deceived Joshua and forced him to refrain from slaughtering them. That, of course, did not stop King Saul in later years from attempting to eradicate them, nor did it prevent David from allowing the Gibeonites from killing Saul's sons.

Thus, to deny the existence of slavery as a biblical institution one must wrench the Old Testament out and then examine and reinterpret the New Testament as having merely employees rather than slaves. Personally, I am not up to that task (reinventing slavery in the New Testament, much less the Old Testament.).

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
But the question is "why" since there is no Bible record of infant baptism and no reason to suspect that infants "make an appeal to God for a clean conscience" as per Peter's statement about baptism in 1 Peter 3?

I can answer that question “why?” Because it couldn’t hurt.

It can't "hurt" an infant to put ten drops of water on their big toe on the day they turn 5 months old. But there is no reason to do it.

 

[Valletta]

Well baptism doesn’t always result in receiving the Holy Spirit.

“But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike. Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed. Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭8‬:‭12‬-‭17‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

That refers to the sacrament of Confirmation, the Eastern Church calls it Chrismation. While anyone can Baptize, not everyone can confirm.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

since there is no Bible record of infant baptism

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."

Real messed up, isn't it? Does "having your cake and eating too" apply here?

 

[Markie Boy]

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 Baptism as "not specifically permitted, therefore prohibited" and the Lord's supper as "not specifically prohibited, therefore permitted."

Real messed up, isn't it. Does "having your cake and eating too" apply here?

I think I agree with all of this perspective. After coming out of Catholicism, I have also been disappointed with the Baptist / Evangelical thought processes. Because I connect with how you are thinking here - can I ask two questions please - I may be too lazy to read all the posts and try to figure it out for myself .

1. Are you in favor of infant baptism?

2. If we baptize an infant - why would we not let them take communion until "an age of reason". This is something that never made sense to me in Catholicism - are they church members or not? And today, confirmation is often 10 years after first communion - so they are not confirmed members until then, but we'll give unconfirmed members communion?

To be fair - after leaving Catholicism, and being disappointed with the American Baptist / Evangelical thing - I'm really working on things.

These questions are for Ain't Zwinglian please.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Why infant baptism?

1. We practice infant baptism as a remedy for original sin.

2. We make the distinction between the "winning" of the forgiveness of sins and the "delivery" of that forgiveness. Jesus won the forgiveness of sins on the cross. But each person must take possession of that forgiveness. Baptism is that delivery system to the child. Baptism contains the Word of God by which the Holy Spirit can work to regenerate and bring faith to anyone.

 

[eleos1954]

Are you saying baptism is OPTIONAL for a Christian?

No passage in the bible says that water baptism is essential for getting into heaven. Therefore, baptism is not necessary as a means of obtaining eternal life.

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." Ephesians 2:8-9

One doesn't become saved by baptism ..... it is their public confession that they have been saved and have chosen Jesus as their Lord and savior.

When a new believer makes a commitment to Jesus Christ, baptism is an ideal next step. The biblical practice of baptism is an outward demonstration of an inward commitment that has taken place.

Baptism is our public statement (commitment) to the faith of Jesus. One can have this commitment without being water baptized.

Only God knows the intent of the heart and the sincerity (commitment) of it. God looks at the motivation of the heart.

If one thinks they will be saved by getting baptized .... then it becomes a work .... and our works are like filthy rags.

Sincerity of the heart .... and only God knows it .... whether baptized or not.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

No passage in the bible says that water baptism is essential for getting into heaven. Therefore, baptism is not necessary as a means of obtaining eternal life.

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." Ephesians 2:8-9

One doesn't become saved by baptism ..... it is their public confession that they have been saved and have chosen Jesus as their Lord and savior.

When a new believer makes a commitment to Jesus Christ, baptism is an ideal next step. The biblical practice of baptism is an outward demonstration of an inward commitment that has taken place.

Baptism is our public statement (commitment) to the faith of Jesus. One can have this commitment without being water baptized.

Only God knows the intent of the heart and the sincerity (commitment) of it. God looks at the motivation of the heart.

If one thinks they will be saved by getting baptized .... then it becomes a work .... and our works are like filthy rags.

Sincerity of the heart .... and only God knows it .... whether baptized or not.

You are close to saying "Baptism is optional" but not quite. So is Christian baptism optional or not?

 

[ViaCrucis]

The real essence of disagreement seems to boil down to this:

1. Salvation is something that we are invited to have, conditionally, on the premise that we come to God and do X, Y, and Z. What, exactly that X, Y, and Z consist of depends on which denomination/tradition you ask. But we can look at the broader Neo-Evangelical movement for some examples of this theology, one of the more famous examples of it being "The Four Spiritual Laws" which presents Jesus' work not as completing the act of reconciling us to God but rather as a provision. The famous picture from this tract is the wide chasm between a holy God and sinful man, and with Jesus/the cross acting as the bridge by which human beings can cross the chasm to come to God directly. Thus salvation is viewed as a conditional gift, a gift which can only be attained through acts of human volition and effort. Which effectively changes the gift into a reward, and a reward based upon human merit.

2. Salvation is something that God Himself actually does, accomplishes, and gives fully; not on the condition of us coming to Him but rather by His coming to us. It is, essentially, the reversal of the picture from The Four Spiritual Laws, Jesus and His atoning work are not a bridge that we cross over to go to God; rather it is the bridge by which God comes over to our side of the chasm. And this means that rather than us doing X, Y, and Z to attain salvation from God who offers it on the condition that we do such things; it is instead that God comes down, crosses over to here, and through His own means (Word and Sacrament) takes hold of us with His grace, and gives us faith. Faith, therefore, is what God Himself grants to us freely as pure gift, through which He saves us freely; rather than faith being an exercise of human power, judgment, discernment, and will by which one reaches upward to take hold of God.

One views faith as the upward movement of man toward God.
The other views faith as the downward movement of God toward man.

As such, we who understand that it is God who comes down--not man who goes up--then we freely speak of God's means of grace. Since God comes down, and works through His means, to give us faith, strengthen our faith, to freely justify us by His grace by declaring us righteous on Christ's account, then the question as to why we baptize infants becomes a head-scratcher. Why would we deprive our children of Jesus? Because that is precisely what the issue is for us: Here is Jesus Christ, here is God's grace, here is the word of God which speaks and gives faith to us, right here in and with this water which, by the two together (water with the word, Ephesians 5:26) there is baptism. Thus we can't speak too highly of baptism, it is brand new life from God by which we have been washed and cleansed by Jesus Christ and have entered into life together with Him, and in Him to the Father and have the Holy Spirit reigning in our hearts daily ministering to us through the word of God.

What we can't understand is why, if baptism really is what it claims to be and what God Himself has said it is in His own written word, why anyone would want to deny this to their child. A child can't consent to being vaccinated or taking medicine or going to a doctor, but parents, having been made responsible for the life and health of their child, nevertheless go and bring their child to the doctor, they go to where there is healing and safety and good for their child and then minister to their child by following the doctor's prescription. And parents raise their child to know right from wrong, and preach daily to them concerning the love of God in Christ (don't they?) So why would a Christian parent, then, if knowing what God promises in baptism for all who are baptized, and who commanded that we make disciples of all nations baptizing them and instructing them in the way of Christ, and who Himself said "Do not deny these little ones access to Me" but instead took them up into His arms, loved them and blessed them and said to such as these belong the kingdom--what excuse could we come up with to deprive that child of the Spiritual life which God freely gives, the grace and love which He desires to shower forth on all sinners, children included.

So it simply makes no sense to us to say, "Why do you have your children baptized?" Because we are wondering why there are those who don't. Our reason is simple: the word of God declares baptism to be a means of God's wonderful grace by which He comes down and accomplishes every good which He promised, and thus grants faith to the heart of that child that he or she might grow up into the disciple of Jesus Christ under the care of her or his parents and then under the faithful shepherding of the pastor. And partaking in the full and abundant life of the Church, of which Christ is Head and Chief Cornerstone, and that means the full and abundant life of the Holy Spirit as well who is here, in His Temple, the Church, working and giving all good things to us out of the love and kindness of God the Father. A holy family, a congregation and communion of saints, the Christian Church, in which Christ is Lord and reigns and who grants us the bread of life, the word of God, and the daily sustenance we need.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Valletta]

No passage in the bible says that water baptism is essential for getting into heaven. Therefore, baptism is not necessary as a means of obtaining eternal life.

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.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

That is true only if you reword the verse to read, "Verily truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are baptized and born of the Spirit."

 

[Valletta]

That is true only if you reword the verse to read, "Verily truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are baptized and born of the Spirit."

Incorrect.