Baptising babies?

[bling]

One of the points I was trying to emphasize is that regardless of the argument over the grammatical syntax of Ephesians 2:8, the fact that it's "not of yourself" and "not by works, that no one may boast" (as in verse 9) must mean that it's not our effort. If faith were by our own effort--that is, faith arises within ourselves by act of will--then the passage is deflated into meaninglessness. Faith comes from outside ourselves, from the good and gracious God who gives us the faith to believe.

It is God's word that gives us faith, and that word is attached to the waters of Baptism, thereby making Baptism what it is.

From the Lutheran perspective Baptism isn't a work. This is true regardless of when one receives Baptism but is most obvious in the case of the infant being baptized who is helpless. The efficacy of Baptism is independent of myself or the one officiating. The Donatist controversy was, in part, over the latter issue and I believe the Church was absolutely correct in condemning Donatism which argued that the efficacy of the Sacraments were dependent upon the status and moral standing of those officiating; in contradistinction the Sacraments derive their efficacy not through the effort of the officiator or the effort of the receiver, but from the promise and grace of God.

An atheist or a Hindu could officiate a Baptism and it would still be Baptism if done in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit; a man could walk into a river, receive Baptism and immediately thereafter reject what had just happened and it would not negate his Baptism.

Baptism is God's work, dependent only upon God's word and God's promises.

That's why we can, and should, place our hope and trust in our Baptism, and not on works which we have done; which we do when we say, "I am saved because I accepted Christ." It is not by works, it is not by anything we have done. It is by the grace and promises of God alone for the sake of Christ alone who was crucified and who alone saves us because He loves us without condition.

Baptism is visible Gospel, and the Gospel is the power of God to save all who believe, God's saving word to us sinners out of His great love for us.

-CryptoLutheran

You say and I agree, it is not a work no matter when it is done (infant or adult), but that does not make the infant right or even better?
The word “Logos” has to do with Christ, but where did you come up with the “word” being “attached” to Baptism? That seems very contrived to fit orthodoxy?
Are you suggesting there was never believer water baptism?
How does the infant get “faith” through baptism and is this some kind of miracle thing?
What about my other questions?

 

[solarwave]

Yes, I was an infant, but I confirmed that baptism by my own choice in public as a teen For me to consent to be baptised would amount to me saying two things I do not believe - a) that I was never really a "proper Christian" and b) God made a mistake, since He is the one who truly baptised me. Well, if the first is true then my entire life has been a monumental lie, everything I have beleived about myself is wrong and I need to rebuild my entire personality from square one. If the second is true then what is the point of believing in God?
Sorry, but I can't believe my entire Christian life has been a sham and I don't have the guts to tell God He screwed up - do you?

You quite obviously have a very different understanding of baptism then. For me it requires you to be a Christian or at least faith and repentance. A baby can't do this. Also I believe a was a Christian long before I was baptised and that nothing magical happened on baptism. I received the Holy Spirit about 2 years before I was baptised.

 

[solarwave]

For what it's worth, the Bible never gives us a description of how Baptism was done or is explicit to exactly who and what age groups (etc) could and did receive it. In order to come up with that information requires both trying to figure out proper baptismal theology and also looking at practices and writings outside of the Biblical Canon. As for the practice of baptizing infants directly, the earliest explicit mention comes from Tertullian who though knowing that it was an "ancient" practice done by Christians everywhere spoke highly against it. He didn't speak against it because, in theory, infants couldn't be baptized but because he believed that sins committed after baptism were very difficult to be rid of and that baptizing an infant meant endangering the child's soul--Tertullian rather believed that it was better to hold off on receiving Baptism for a very long time in order to ensure forgiveness of sins and a better chance of not burning in Hell.

Maybe I am wrong, but it makes sense to me that baptism would require faith, which is something a baby doesn't have.

I more or less addressed this in my previous post. There's a fairly large difference between having your children baptized because, as a parent, you are entrusted to raising your child into the basic values and beliefs you hold dear--and for a Christian parent that means raising a child into the Christian faith which arguably necessitates beginning with Baptism... And going out and kidnapping hapless atheists, Pagans or Buddhists and throwing them into the baptismal font.

I have no problem with parents raising their kids with Christian faith and values, even dedicating them to God, but I don't think this should be called baptism. Obviously we understand baptism differently..... what is the point of it in your view?

Which could make sense if Baptism was simply a ritual, but if Baptism is all these things which I've been arguing it is, then it doesn't make sense. When I came into this world I was born from my mother's womb and made part of my family, if I became estranged from my family and then returned I wouldn't need to be born all over again, but simply find reconciliation. When we were baptized we were born into the family of God, if we become estranged from our spiritual family and then return, we don't need to be baptized all over again, but simply find reconciliation.

I assume the theift on the cross next to Jesus wasn't baptised but is part of God's family. What does it mean to be part of God's family? Does it make any difference to be in His family if it has nothing to do with relationship with God?

If Baptism was a ritual to demonstrate repentance--similar to John's baptism--then heck, do it all the time. But if Baptism is the normative means by which we are born again as children of God the Father, are forgiven, given the Holy Spirit, united to Christ having died to sin and made alive to God (et al) then Baptism happens once and for all.

I'm not trying to say it is to represent repentance, more like to represent faith. An outward expression of an inward chance. I definitely had the Holy Spirit 2 years before I was baptised and was forgiven also.

But of course I could be wrong.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

You say and I agree, it is not a work no matter when it is done (infant or adult), but that does not make the infant right or even better?

Not better. I was raised in a credobaptist tradition (non-denominational for my early childhood and then Foursquare through my adolescence and teenage years) so I didn't receive Baptism until I was 17. I just think the questions being asked are different, you may be asking "Why should infants be baptized?" where I would ask, "Why shouldn't infants be baptized?" If Baptism is a gift, a means by which to bring us into the household of faith, to make us children of God, joint-heirs with Jesus, given the Holy Spirit, forgives us of our sins, unites us to Jesus and clothes us with all righteousness (and all else we can say about it) then why withhold it from infants?

The word “Logos” has to do with Christ, but where did you come up with the “word” being “attached” to Baptism? That seems very contrived to fit orthodoxy?

The Lutheran definition of a Sacrament involves the word being attached to an element. In Baptism it is water with the word, in the Eucharist it is bread and wine with the word. In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul speaks of Christ washing the Church "by washing of water with the word". That's the idea here, it's God's word, His good word to us, His promises and all that He's said concerning these things.

Are you suggesting there was never believer water baptism?

Not as we define it today as a distinct baptismal theology. As noted, there were some who argued against baptizing infants in antiquity, but the argument wasn't against baptizing infants in theory, but rather involved a view of Baptism that rendered the post-baptized as being in danger of hell. That is, the longer one waits to postpone Baptism the more sins are covered and therefore a less chance of lapsing into sin after Baptism. Such a view, I believe, is rather without grace. However, a systematized theology of credobaptism--as far as I'm aware--is a product of the 16th century Anabaptists. There were certainly those prior who rejected Baptism, certain medieval neo-/quasi-gnostic sects for example who regarded "external" sacraments as worthless because material reality wasn't important. An example of such a sect would be the Paulicians, a dualistic neo-Manichaean group that rejected the Hebrew Scriptures, rejected Baptism and the Eucharist and regarded Christ as having come to liberate human beings from the body.

How does the infant get “faith” through baptism and is this some kind of miracle thing?

Depends on how one is defining "miracle". If by a supernatural act of God, then yes. But it's no more a miracle for the infant to receive faith than for an adult. An adult is no more capable of generating faith than an infant, whether we are newborn infants or elderly men and women we are equally helpless and unable to have faith apart from the gracious work of God by His Gospel word.

What about my other questions?

I looked through some of your prior posts, and I'm not sure I'm seeing which questions I haven't attempted to respond to. If I keep missing them, I apologize, but if you'd like to ask them again I'll happily try and tackle them if I can.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Maybe I am wrong, but it makes sense to me that baptism would require faith, which is something a baby doesn't have.

In Lutheran theology God gives us faith in Baptism. Whether infants or adults.

I have no problem with parents raising their kids with Christian faith and values, even dedicating them to God, but I don't think this should be called baptism. Obviously we understand baptism differently..... what is the point of it in your view?

I'll interject some references to Scripture here, since usually in conversations such as this having some can prove helpful.

Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), by which we are pardoned of all on account of Christ's sake who suffered and died for us that we might be reconciled to God and made His children and heirs of His promise. Thereby receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) who quickens us to new life in Christ, and therefore new creations in Christ Jesus (Romans 6:3-10), born again from above (John 3:5) and made citizens of His heavenly and eternal kingdom. We are crucified with Jesus, joined together with Him in His death, and raised up with Him and made a partaker in His victory over sin and death (again Romans 6). We are given faith, through which we are justified and made right with God who does this by His own unconditional and unmerited grace and mercy. In Baptism we are cut off from the world, given a circumcision "not by hands" (Colossians 2:11), set apart as belonging to Christ, and if to Christ then to God His Father.

I assume the theift on the cross next to Jesus wasn't baptised but is part of God's family.

Certainly. God is free to act as He will and however He wants. The thief was saved by Christ's promise to him that he would be with Him in paradise. That the normative and usual means by which we are born again in Christ is Baptism doesn't mean that God can't use other means outside of what He has specifically told us. I have every confidence that God can and does act in ways mysterious to us.

What does it mean to be part of God's family? Does it make any difference to be in His family if it has nothing to do with relationship with God?

We do have a relationship with God, in Baptism we are born again and united to Christ, invited into a life of faith with God in our Lord Jesus. It's the beginning of a life with God as we are members of Christ's Body, the Church, living together, working together, etc. Sure, we can walk away from that, just as we can walk away from our own families.

I'm not trying to say it is to represent repentance, more like to represent faith. An outward expression of an inward chance. I definitely had the Holy Spirit 2 years before I was baptised and was forgiven also.

But of course I could be wrong.

I understand that as well. I grew up in the faith but was not baptized until I was seventeen years old. I certainly had faith and the Spirit prior, but I'm still convinced Baptism does all these things. I figure it's part of the paradox and mystery of faith. But I'm not convinced that what God can do outside of what He's told us, because He's a good God that loves us, negates what God has promised and told us.

I can still look back upon my baptism and say it was all these things. I can still stand upon the foundation of my baptism and say I am His because I am baptized. I love my baptism. I cherish it. Because Christ saved me when I went under the water and came out. I believe I was saved and being saved before, but I still say that Christ saved and justified me in the waters of Baptism. Again I regard the disparity in both of those statements as a paradox and a mystery.

To help amend these points, here's a link to the LCMS website that answers it pretty well. Note that I attend an ELCA church, not LCMS, but that's a moot point here.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bling]

Not better. I was raised in a credobaptist tradition (non-denominational for my early childhood and then Foursquare through my adolescence and teenage years) so I didn't receive Baptism until I was 17. I just think the questions being asked are different, you may be asking "Why should infants be baptized?" where I would ask, "Why shouldn't infants be baptized?" If Baptism is a gift, a means by which to bring us into the household of faith, to make us children of God, joint-heirs with Jesus, given the Holy Spirit, forgives us of our sins, unites us to Jesus and clothes us with all righteousness (and all else we can say about it) then why withhold it from infants?

If we offer up to God obedience to “man’s directions” and not His, that is vain worship. The person that is “baptized” as an infant may avoid all the benefits of being baptized as an adult, since as you teach they should not be rebaptized. Baptism is a privilege and honor, but what is the difference between baptizing an infant and spraying water on people that do not understand what you are doing to them?
If a baptized infant has all that you are talking about would any ever need conversion?
How can you withhold “baptism” from infants that are not asking to be baptized?
An infant is in a safe condition, because he/she has not sinned, so does not need forgiveness or any of the stuff the infant cannot understand, handle or use. What tells you a non-believing infant gets any of these things at their infant baptism?
Do you believe baptized infants are automatically believers?

Not as we define it today as a distinct baptismal theology. As noted, there were some who argued against baptizing infants in antiquity, but the argument wasn't against baptizing infants in theory, but rather involved a view of Baptism that rendered the post-baptized as being in danger of hell. That is, the longer one waits to postpone Baptism the more sins are covered and therefore a less chance of lapsing into sin after Baptism. Such a view, I believe, is rather without grace. However, a systematized theology of credobaptism--as far as I'm aware--is a product of the 16th century Anabaptists. There were certainly those prior who rejected Baptism, certain medieval neo-/quasi-gnostic sects for example who regarded "external" sacraments as worthless because material reality wasn't important. An example of such a sect would be the Paulicians, a dualistic neo-Manichaean group that rejected the Hebrew Scriptures, rejected Baptism and the Eucharist and regarded Christ as having come to liberate human beings from the body.

I am still confused by your answer. Can we show definitely that some unbelievers were water baptized in the first century? Can we show believers being water baptized?
First ,second and third century secular history is poor especially with all the persecution going on, but of the good records we have does not show any definite examples of infant baptism in the first and second century. We do have examples of believer water emersion baptism.

Depends on how one is defining "miracle". If by a supernatural act of God, then yes. But it's no more a miracle for the infant to receive faith than for an adult. An adult is no more capable of generating faith than an infant, whether we are newborn infants or elderly men and women we are equally helpless and unable to have faith apart from the gracious work of God by His Gospel word.

Eph 2:8 does not show “faith” to be a special gift. The special gift is salvation.
All mature adult humans have the gift of trusting other and/or self. God has also provide mature adults with His Love as seen in Jesus to trust in, but that does not mean all mature adults will chose to trust God’s Love enough to accept His forgiveness.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

If we offer up to God obedience to “man’s directions” and not His, that is vain worship. The person that is “baptized” as an infant may avoid all the benefits of being baptized as an adult, since as you teach they should not be rebaptized. Baptism is a privilege and honor, but what is the difference between baptizing an infant and spraying water on people that do not understand what you are doing to them?

We baptize infants, and not go out and hose down non-Christian adults in the Triune name is because the latter is rude and forced while the former is about the beginning of Christian life and discipleship. At least that's one reason.

If a baptized infant has all that you are talking about would any ever need conversion?

I might put it this way: We were truly converted in Baptism, we became dead to the world and alive to Christ, it was a true and real conversion that justifies us; and yes we are currently being converted as the Holy Spirit lives in us, sanctifying and transforming us into the image of Christ.

How can you withhold “baptism” from infants that are not asking to be baptized?

As obeying the command of God to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them all that the Lord has commanded us. We baptize infants for the same reason we baptize adults, the word of Christ.

Infants are unable to ask to be fed, or taught to speak or to walk. But, if we love them we do these things for them anyway. As Christians, who believe in Christ's word to baptize all nations, why withhold Baptism which is far more important than all these other things?

An infant is in a safe condition, because he/she has not sinned, so does not need forgiveness or any of the stuff the infant cannot understand, handle or use.

Infants are born into the same fallen world that you and I as adults live in every day. They are no less in need of the grace of God as you and I need.

What tells you a non-believing infant gets any of these things at their infant baptism?

God's promises that whoever has been baptized has died to sin, having been buried with Christ and therefore rise up together with Him to new life in God. It is not rationally comprehended, but believed upon because of the good and gracious promises of God. There's nothing that tells me, rationally, that anything about the Gospel is true, but yet I believe it by faith.

Do you believe baptized infants are automatically believers?

They have faith by virtue of their baptism. So yes.

I am still confused by your answer. Can we show definitely that some unbelievers were water baptized in the first century? Can we show believers being water baptized?

Probably not.

First ,second and third century secular history is poor especially with all the persecution going on, but of the good records we have does not show any definite examples of infant baptism in the first and second century. We do have examples of believer water emersion baptism.

There are implicit examples of infant Baptism in patristic works in the 2nd century at least, and definitely by the end of the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

An example of the former might be St. Justin's statement in his First Apology,

"And many, both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years; and I boast that I could produce such from every race of men." - First Apology of St. Justin, ch. 15

Or, for example, St. Polycarp's claim that he had served Christ for "eighty and six years", i.e. his entire life.

St. Irenaeus explicitly says, "For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." -Against Heresies,2,22:4

Etc.

The practice was common, regarded as having apostolic origins. Whether that's true or not is up for debate, that it was so common as to generally be assumed normal by the end of the 2nd century with potential evidence that it was practiced before the close of the first century (as per the remarks by St. Justin and St. Polycarp) seems to be fairly evident.

It may not be explicit apostolic practice, but it is a natural growth out from apostolic practice; it certainly wouldn't have been strange considering Christianity's Jewish roots with the practice of Circumcision (with which Baptism is compared to in Colossians), and since Christian Baptism evolved from the Jewish practice of the mikvah, which includes infants being washed in the mikvah it hardly seems strange that the administration of Baptism would be given to small children and infants as a natural part of Baptism's role in the Christian community as a sort of "new circumcision" and conversion process available. Which, further, may shed light on the concept of whole households being baptized.

So while, no, there's no definite evidence for infant baptism practiced before explicit statements coming from the mid-late 2nd century; an argument of silence does not itself substantiate that it did not happen. It would, instead, seem to make sense that it would have been quite natural to baptize infants, if not strictly apostolic itself would seem to be so early as to make the quibble perhaps trivial.

Eph 2:8 does not show “faith” to be a special gift. The special gift is salvation.

All mature adult humans have the gift of trusting other and/or self. God has also provide mature adults with His Love as seen in Jesus to trust in, but that does not mean all mature adults will chose to trust God’s Love enough to accept His forgiveness.

At this point we'll likely not be able to come to any agreement, Lutheran theology is incompatible with any form of Decision theology.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bling]

We baptize infants, and not go out and hose down non-Christian adults in the Triune name is because the latter is rude and forced while the former is about the beginning of Christian life and discipleship. At least that's one reason.

Neither action has the permission of the participant. The baptism of infants immediately brought about a ton of spiritual things according to your previous post, so why not do the same for all nonbelievers in a massive hosing in the name of the Triune, so they can get unknowingly the same thing as the infant?

I might put it this way: We were truly converted in Baptism, we became dead to the world and alive to Christ, it was a true and real conversion that justifies us; and yes we are currently being converted as the Holy Spirit lives in us, sanctifying and transforming us into the image of Christ.

Does “conversion” mean a changing of one’s direction? Does the infant change direction?
What “worldliness” does an infant have?

As obeying the command of God to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them all that the Lord has commanded us. We baptize infants for the same reason we baptize adults, the word of Christ.

Infants are unable to ask to be fed, or taught to speak or to walk. But, if we love them we do these things for them anyway. As Christians, who believe in Christ's word to baptize all nations, why withhold Baptism which is far more important than all these other things?

Do you baptize adults that do not agree and/ or ask to be baptized the way you baptize infants or is there a difference in the two baptisms?
What does baptizing a baby teach that baby?
We are to baptize all nations, but you and I agree that you should not baptize an adult without their permission, but then you turn around and baptize a child without his/her permission, why the difference?
There are obvious health reasons for feeding, clothing, changing diapers, and bathing a baby. There is no apparent change in a baby that has been baptized that has been seen. Children raised to adulthood by excellent Christian Parents do seem better than those that have not been raised by Christian parents, but nothing has been shown to support infant baptism helping the child as compared to those that were baptized as adults, unless you know of something?

Infants are born into the same fallen world that you and I as adults live in every day. They are no less in need of the grace of God as you and I need.

Do not blame the “fallen world” for your sins. We need grace because we have sinned, but a baby has not yet sinned so why would the baby need grace (Forgiveness/mercy/Charity).

God's promises that whoever has been baptized has died to sin, having been buried with Christ and therefore rise up together with Him to new life in God. It is not rationally comprehended, but believed upon because of the good and gracious promises of God. There's nothing that tells me, rationally, that anything about the Gospel is true, but yet I believe it by faith.[/

[/QUOTE]
Christ did all that willingly.
God has provided us with logic that we can use to understand the “Logic” behind the Gospel. You have to start with the objectives to see how it all falls in place.
A creator that has been around forever would have developed (had from the beginning) the greatest of all attributes.
The greatest attribute is a Godly type Love (we have this Love defined by everything Christ said and did).
Love can be measured by the amount of sacrifice the Lover is willing to make.
God’s Love is so great He would be willing to allow even His only son to be tortured, humiliated and murdered for our sake.
This type of Love would have compelled God to make beings that could Love like He Loves.
Unfortunately Godly type Love cannot be programmed into people (instinctive) that is not Godly type Love but robotic type love. And God could not force this Love on us (a shoot gun wedding with him holding the gun) for that would not be loving on God’s part and the love we did get would not be Godly type Love.
Love has to be given and accepted as total “Charity” (undeserving and unconditional), but humans do not easily accept charity especially when the giver paid a huge price to give the gift.
The problem is getting us to accept the charity as charity.
Our objective is “to obtain this Love” so we can Love God and others with all our heart, soul, mind and energy. God’s Objective is to do all He can to help those that are willing to fulfill their objective. With the “all” including the allowing of: Christ going to the cross, Satan to roam the earth, tragedies of all kind, hell, and even sin.

They have faith by virtue of their baptism. So yes.

I don’t see how a baby that does not know Christ can believe in Christ and thus be a believer? What is the Bible definition for believer?

There are implicit examples of infant Baptism in patristic works in the 2nd century at least, and definitely by the end of the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

An example of the former might be St. Justin's statement in his First Apology,

"And many, both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years; and I boast that I could produce such from every race of men." - First Apology of St. Justin, ch. 15

Or, for example, St. Polycarp's claim that he had served Christ for "eighty and six years", i.e. his entire life.

St. Irenaeus explicitly says, "For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." -Against Heresies,2,22:4

Etc.

The “Etc.” might be a little misleading since I know of no other references. I am familiar with these, but would the idea of “being from childhood” in Justin’s letter mean “infant baptism” or just as early as they remember they became believers?
Can you not serve the Lord as a believer, prior to being baptized? We do not know how old Polycarp was, so how old he was when He started serving Christ cannot be determined.
Irenaeus is suspicious because he does use the example of Naaman being cleans from his leprosy like we have our sins washed away. But infants do not have sins?
It is an assumption Irenaeus is talking about baptism even here.