Baptising babies?

Here is how the Defense of the Augsburg Confession states it,

"51] The Ninth Article has been approved, in which we confess that Baptism is necessary to salvation, and that children are to be baptized, and that the baptism of children is not in vain, but is necessary and effectual to salvation. 52] And since the Gospel is taught among us purely and diligently, by God's favor we receive also from it this fruit, that in our Churches no Anabaptists have arisen [have not gained ground in our Churches], because the people have been fortified by God's Word against the wicked and seditious faction of these robbers. And as we condemn quite a number of other errors of the Anabaptists, we condemn this also, that they dispute that the baptism of little children is unprofitable. For it is very certain that the promise of salvation pertains also to little children [that the divine promises of grace and of the Holy Ghost belong not alone to the old, but also to children]. It does not, however, pertain to those who are outside of Christ's Church, where there is neither Word nor Sacraments, because the kingdom of Christ exists only with the Word and Sacraments. Therefore it is necessary to baptize little children, that the promise of salvation may be applied to them, according to Christ's command, Matt. 28:19: Baptize all nations. Just as here salvation is offered to all, so Baptism is offered to all, to men, women, children, infants. It clearly follows, therefore, that infants are to be baptized, because with Baptism salvation [the universal grace and treasure of the Gospel] is offered. 53] Secondly, it is manifest that God approves of the baptism of little children. Therefore the Anabaptists, who condemn the baptism of little children, believe wickedly. That God, however, approves of the baptism of little children is shown by this, namely, that God gives the Holy Ghost to those thus baptized [to many who have been baptized in childhood]. For if this baptism would be in vain, the Holy Ghost would be given to none, none would be saved, and finally there would be no Church. [For there have been many holy men in the Church who have not been baptized otherwise.] This reason, even taken alone, can sufficiently establish good and godly minds against the godless and fanatical opinions of the Anabaptists."

Here is also how St. Peter, in the Acts puts it,

"Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call." - Acts 2:38-39

Baptism is not about my choice to follow Christ, there are plenty of opportunities to choose Christ throughout my day, every day, once I have the faith to do so. Baptism is the efficacious means by which God creates faith in us.

That is, when the child is baptized, all of God's promises attached to Baptism are realized. They are not nullified by anything, God's word will not return to Him void. And what has God promised in Baptism? That in Baptism we have been buried with Christ, and also that we have risen with Him, having died to sin; that in Baptism all our sins are forgiven, we are made new creations in Christ Jesus, clothed with the righteousness of Jesus. These things and more are all promises attached to Baptism that cannot be made void by human effort or will.

It doesn't matter if one is 8 days old or 80 years old when we receive Baptism, the same efficacious promises of God are available.

Now, Baptism does not guarantee that one will keep the faith given, Jesus is clear int he parable of the sower that when the seed is sown sometimes thistles grow up and choke it out, and sometimes the birds come and pluck it away. But this does not invalidate the promises of God in Baptism.

Why not baptize children? Why would Christian parents not want their children to receive all the good promises of God which He has attached to Baptism? If I believe that Christ Himself is present and available in the waters of Baptism to make my child a child of God, born again and heir of all the good things of God the Father, why would I not have my child baptized? If those promises are available without condition or caveat, but there by virtue of the Word of God, then they are as applicable to the newborn child as the man in his 80's or 90's.

-CryptoLutheran

Fatally.Yours said:

Why do some particular churches do this? Surely if baptising is a way to get rid of all your sins it's better to do so once you're old enough to understand what's going on and to actually have committed some serious sins? I know it's meant to be about joining the church family and all that, but I was baptised Catholic at 4 weeks old and I've never been a Christian so you can't tell me baptising babies works.

Click to expand...

The ancient belief of Christianity (i.e. before the Reformation) is that baptism wipes away original sin, which everyone is born with. That is the main reason it is done to infants.

Dark_Lite said:

The ancient belief of Christianity (i.e. before the Reformation) is that baptism wipes away original sin, which everyone is born with. That is the main reason it is done to infants.

Click to expand...

(ie. not found in scripture)

Dark_Lite said:

The ancient belief of Christianity (i.e. before the Reformation) is that baptism wipes away original sin, which everyone is born with. That is the main reason it is done to infants.

Click to expand...

I think the issue is a bit more complex and nuanced than that, especially as far as Original Sin is concerned, given that Original Sin as defined in Augustinian theology has never been universally accepted. Augustinian theology, in general, had little to no influence on the Eastern Churches who generally speak of Ancestral Sin rather than Original Sin. Even as a Protestant and heir of the Western theological tradition, I'm probably more sympathetic to the Eastern position on this topic--though that's for another discussion altogether I wager.

That said, baptizing infants for the forgiveness of sins is still the historic practice, and remains so among the ancient churches and some of us Protestants who continue the ancient practice of the Church.

Where I might take issue, at least, would be with any notion that Baptism returns us to a pre-lapsarian state. At least in Lutheran theology there is the concept of simul iustus et peccator, we are both saints and sinners. In Baptism we are given faith, it's a gift not something we can conjure up on our own, and God makes us born again and new creations in Jesus. Paul speaks of the "old man" and the "new man", in Baptism the old has been crucified and buried with Christ and the new rises up and yet the two seem to continually to persist--the idea perhaps most famously being seen in Paul's lament in Romans chapter 7 about doing what He doesn't want to do and not doing what He wants to do. That is, simul iustus et peccator, we are both saints and sinners. After Baptism we still continue to struggle with sin, the old man continuing to battle the new, but in our Baptism we hope and have faith in God's sure and certain promises that we are His for Christ's sake. Baptism most assuredly does save us, even as we are now being saved and, in the end, will be saved at the coming of the Lord when even our mortal bodies are redeemed and transformed in the resurrection of the dead in the Age to come.

-CryptoLutheran

CryptoLutheran said:

I think the issue is a bit more complex and nuanced than that,

Click to expand...

Not really.

especially as far as Original Sin is concerned, given that Original Sin as defined in Augustinian theology has never been universally accepted. Augustinian theology, in general, had little to no influence on the Eastern Churches who generally speak of Ancestral Sin rather than Original Sin. Even as a Protestant and heir of the Western theological tradition, I'm probably more sympathetic to the Eastern position on this topic--though that's for another discussion altogether I wager.

Click to expand...

You are correct. Not all of Augustine's theology was accepted. He thought that sin was passed on genetically, for example. In regards to Original Sin: in the Catholic Church (and Protestantism by extension), it has become somewhat more formalized than in the Orthodox Church.

That said, baptizing infants for the forgiveness of sins is still the historic practice, and remains so among the ancient churches and some of us Protestants who continue the ancient practice of the Church.

Click to expand...

Which is why the issue is not much more complex or nuanced!

Dark_Lite said:

Not really.



You are correct. Not all of Augustine's theology was accepted. He thought that sin was passed on genetically, for example. In the Catholic Church (and Protestantism by extension), it has become somewhat more formalized than in the Orthodox Church.



Which is why the issue is not much more complex or nuanced!

Click to expand...

Should you be rebaptized after becoming a believer following the example of the first century Bible references?

bling said:

Should you be rebaptized after becoming a believer following the example of the first century Bible references?

Click to expand...

Those who were baptized as infants received faith as a gift from God, and who grew up in that faith and have continued to believe their entire lives have always been believers. So why should they be rebaptized? Baptism isn't dependent upon ourselves, but God's promise. It isn't something we do for God, but something God does for us. It's a gift and a promise. It's free and unmerited grace from God.

Someone who was baptized as an infant, but who later leaves the faith and then returns later on does not need to be rebaptized. Baptism is not nullified because of our faithlessness, all the promises of God in our Baptism are true and certain. When we return to faith what we need is not a second baptism as though the first didn't "stick", but to reaffirm our Baptism and all the hope and assurance which is found in it because of God's promises and Word.

Once baptized, always baptized. God's word to us in Baptism is true and indelible.

-CryptoLutheran

John_Galt said:

(ie. not found in scripture)

Click to expand...

Try reading all those references to entire households being baptized when the man converted, and ask yourself if you honestly believe women and children had some sort of choice in the matter in first century Greco-Roman culture.

CryptoLutheran said:

Those who were baptized as infants received faith as a gift from God, and who grew up in that faith and have continued to believe their entire lives have always been believers. So why should they be rebaptized? Baptism isn't dependent upon ourselves, but God's promise. It isn't something we do for God, but something God does for us. It's a gift and a promise. It's free and unmerited grace from God.

Someone who was baptized as an infant, but who later leaves the faith and then returns later on does not need to be rebaptized. Baptism is not nullified because of our faithlessness, all the promises of God in our Baptism are true and certain. When we return to faith what we need is not a second baptism as though the first didn't "stick", but to reaffirm our Baptism and all the hope and assurance which is found in it because of God's promises and Word.

Once baptized, always baptized. God's word to us in Baptism is true and indelible.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Where does scripture talk about faith coming as a “gift” at baptism???

Do we have any examples of nonbelievers/infants being baptized? We do have examples of households being baptized but do we know for sure the Greek Word for Household would include infants and if it did do we know any infants were definitely in any of these households?

We do know rebaptism did take place (Acts 19: 1-7) with John the Baptist baptism so how can you say “once baptized always baptized? Does the Bible not teach everyone in Judah was baptized by John, so were those on Pentecost rebaptized?

I agree we are not “baptized” for God’s sake or something we “do” but it is something we allow to be done to us, so baptism is a huge help for us. At conversion with baptism we have the opportunity to combine what is happening Spiritually with a physical act to support the reality: we are putting off our old life and transitioning into a new life, we bury the old sinful man (going under water), our sins are washed away (we feel the water running off our bodies), We release our control of ourselves to God (we place our body into the hands of a believer), we rise with Christ (rise from a watery grave) and we leave the water into the hands of our new brothers and sisters to start a new life. Why would any Christian not want that aid to their experience?


Somewhat off the subject is your understanding of the gift of faith and my understanding.

CryptoLutheran said:

Those who were baptized as infants received faith as a gift from God, and who grew up in that faith and have continued to believe their entire lives have always been believers. So why should they be rebaptized? Baptism isn't dependent upon ourselves, but God's promise. It isn't something we do for God, but something God does for us. It's a gift and a promise. It's free and unmerited grace from God.

Click to expand...

I would have to disagree and say that those 'baptized' as babies weren't baptized as the Bible seems to describe it. Dedication perhaps.

Do you believe something is gained through baptism? If so and if it has nothing to do with human will or belief then wouldn't it be good if we kidnapped atheists and baptised them for their benefit?

To be honest if people can't be bothered to be baptised as adult because they were baptised as babies then fair enough, but for those who leave the faith and return and want to think themselves as baptised, they should be baptised.

To be honest this thread kinda convinces me that baptism is pointless, or at least it means what ever you want it to mean.

bling said:

Where does scripture talk about faith coming as a “gift” at baptism???

Click to expand...

Faith is spoken of as a gift given to us by God in Ephesians 2, specifically verse 8, "it is the gift from God". Realizing, of course, that there is some debate as to the exact linguistic construction and some content faith is not intended as the gift. That said, even if grammatically "this" is not connected to "faith" explicitly, the point communicated--that it is not of us, but of God--remains very clear. If by grace through faith we are saved, then faith must either come from within ourselves or outside of ourselves; if the former than the process is at least partly of ourselves, which defeats the whole point of Paul's statement.

Elsewhere Paul says that faith comes from hearing the word of Christ (Romans 10:17), at that point of course we can rightly ask where is the word found? In Lutheran thought Baptism isn't just water, it's water and the Word, without the Word it's only water and does nothing, with the Word it's Baptism. This stems from the language in Ephesians 5,

"...even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word," - Ephesians 5:25-26

This is by no means intended as a comprehensive argument, but rather to demonstrate some of the basic thought here. And it's not that God can only create faith in us in Baptism, that's not it at all. God is free to create faith however He so wills, however for hundreds of thousands of people, for many hundreds of years, the first encounter with God's word received was in the waters of Baptism. Also, with all the great and many things said about Baptism in Scripture, it's place as the beginning of the Christian life, where sins are forgiven, where we are united to Jesus Christ, et al it is there, right there in the waters of Baptism that for the vast majority of Christians where the beginnings of the life of faith begins. Can that faith come by other means? Certainly, God is not bound, but considering all the many promises He has attached specifically to Baptism why wouldn't we extol it so highly?

If the king has invited me to a great feast, promising me that I will be satisfied and well fed, sure I might find sustenance elsewhere, but there is the sure promise there where the king has said it is. So it is with Baptism, God has given His absolute promises about Baptism and all it gives us, God is good and gracious and may act elsewhere, but elsewhere isn't where those sure and certain promises are located, but they are present in Holy Baptism. Not of ourselves, but the gift of a good and gracious God.

Do we have any examples of nonbelievers/infants being baptized? We do have examples of households being baptized but do we know for sure the Greek Word for Household would include infants and if it did do we know any infants were definitely in any of these households?

Click to expand...

The oikos, the family household, included mothers, fathers, children, servants, everything. No, we can't be certain that infants are necessarily part of the oikos in those cases in Acts and elsewhere.

The question I think we should ask is why shouldn't we include infants in the universal call to be baptized? If Baptism is all these many and great things, why withhold it from anyone who is capable of receiving it?

Why don't we go out and steal away atheists, or other non-Christians and throw water on them or dunk them in water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Well, for one, that's rude. Our job isn't to force people into the Church, but to proclaim God's good news, baptize and make disciples.

Then why children? Presumably because a Christian parent is going to raise a Christian child, so they are baptized, and raised in the faith. They are taught to pray, they are catechized, they are brought up as Christians. They may leave Christianity later on, that's always possible, but chances are if we call ourselves Christians and if we have children we're going to do what we think is best for them and that includes rearing them up as Christians.

We do know rebaptism did take place (Acts 19: 1-7) with John the Baptist baptism so how can you say “once baptized always baptized? Does the Bible not teach everyone in Judah was baptized by John, so were those on Pentecost rebaptized?

Click to expand...

Though it's worth pointing out what may be obvious and that's that it's a very clear case that they had received John's baptism, not Christian baptism. Christian baptism, which the text describes as being "in the name of the Lord Jesus" was administered to them. It's not a re-baptism, but their first baptism, the first time they received that Baptism which until Pentecost had never been done. One who has been baptized into Christ is always baptized into Christ.

I agree we are not “baptized” for God’s sake or something we “do” but it is something we allow to be done to us, so baptism is a huge help for us. At conversion with baptism we have the opportunity to combine what is happening Spiritually with a physical act to support the reality: we are putting off our old life and transitioning into a new life, we bury the old sinful man (going under water), our sins are washed away (we feel the water running off our bodies), We release our control of ourselves to God (we place our body into the hands of a believer), we rise with Christ (rise from a watery grave) and we leave the water into the hands of our new brothers and sisters to start a new life. Why would any Christian not want that aid to their experience?

Click to expand...

A symbolic view of Baptism, at least as it seems to me, comes across a lot like a show. It's just a ritual, something churchly and religiousy that's done as an "experience". To that end, why speak of it so highly as is done throughout the New Testament?

The chief arguments there, that I'm familiar with, are that all these mentions of "Baptism" refer to something else other than regular, normal Baptism but some "spiritual" baptism and thus rendering being baptized with water either

A) Totally worthless or
B) A nice thing to do

Such a baptismal theology has rendered "baptism" to an entirely internal, inward work, and tends to be part of a larger theological pattern of anti-materiality. Traditional Christian baptismal theology is intimately connected to a larger sacramental and incarnational theology that emphasizes the innate goodness of materiality and God's good use of matter to communicate Himself to us and God's redemption of the material world, including our own bodies which will rise again on the Last Day.

Thus, I think a highly spiritualized baptismal theology that renders the materiality of the Sacrament to the position of being either moot or of symbolic importance only is part of a larger theological paradigm that generally has difficulty embracing the goodness of materiality and it's place in the divine work of God in saving and redeeming the whole of creation.

-CryptoLutheran


Somewhat off the subject is your understanding of the gift of faith and my understanding. [/quote]

solarwave said:

I would have to disagree and say that those 'baptized' as babies weren't baptized as the Bible seems to describe it. Dedication perhaps.

Click to expand...

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.

It's also worth mentioning Tertullian's conversion to the Montanist sect and his rejection of catholic Christianity later in his life.

Do you believe something is gained through baptism? If so and if it has nothing to do with human will or belief then wouldn't it be good if we kidnapped atheists and baptised them for their benefit?

Click to expand...

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.

To be honest if people can't be bothered to be baptised as adult because they were baptised as babies then fair enough, but for those who leave the faith and return and want to think themselves as baptised, they should be baptised.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

That is to say, once baptized always baptized. One can't become un-baptized.

I could disown my parents, but I can't undo what happened 28 years ago when I came out of the birth canal kicking and screaming.

-CryptoLutheran

To be honest this thread kinda convinces me that baptism is pointless, or at least it means what ever you want it to mean.

Click to expand...

CryptoLutheran said:

Faith is spoken of as a gift given to us by God in Ephesians 2, specifically verse 8, "it is the gift from God".

Click to expand...

You mean the same verse that says that grace does not come as the result of works (ie. religious rituals)?

CryptoLutheran said:

Faith is spoken of as a gift given to us by God in Ephesians 2, specifically verse 8, "it is the gift from God". Realizing, of course, that there is some debate as to the exact linguistic construction and some content faith is not intended as the gift. That said, even if grammatically "this" is not connected to "faith" explicitly, the point communicated--that it is not of us, but of God--remains very clear. If by grace through faith we are saved, then faith must either come from within ourselves or outside of ourselves; if the former than the process is at least partly of ourselves, which defeats the whole point of Paul's statement.

Click to expand...

You seem to be familiar with the grammar issues with Eph. 2:8, but you might also look at verse 9.
I would not stop there with just the Greek grammar issue.
People use Eph 2:8 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” to show “faith” is a gift and forget about verse 9 which says: “not by works, so that no one can boast.” The gift cannot be grammatical correct and be “faith”, but you do not have to know Greek, just look at verse 9. If “faith” were the gift then Paul is telling us not to work for??? It does not make any sense; faith cannot be worked for and earned which is not logical or discussed as even an option anywhere else. How would people go about working to obtain faith anyway (you quit working (trying to do it yourself) and start trusting [faith]). The “gift” in Eph. 2:8 is the whole salvation process which Paul talks about in other places, showing people trying to earn salvation.

“Faith” in the form of “trust” is found in all mature adult humans and since animals do not show “faith” we all have this gift from God as humans.
God also provides the one true object to trust in and in that way we all have the potential gift of a saving faith.
The problem is in allowing ourselves to channel the faith we have toward the Loving Creator enough to accept His forgiveness and relieve our burden of sin.
Accepting the free undeserving and unconditional gift as Charity (which is what it is) is the problem, but the only way to initially obtain God’s Love is in the form of accepting God’s forgiveness.
Accepting charity is something the lowliest person can do and is contrasted with “working” for something, so accepting charity is not a “work” or something anyone would take pride in doing.
If you are suggesting we do not “accept” charity but got the gift unknowingly “we were born into it” we could than maintain our ego and pride, but would that mean we got God’s Love instinctively (robotic type Love programmed into us) so it that the way God Loves us?
Does God force the gift on us (like the father at a shoot gun wedding) and is that Loving on the Father’s part?
Can a baby truly “hear” God’s word and does not “hearing” have to do with comprehending and not just sounds?

"...even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word," - Ephesians 5:25-26

This is by no means intended as a comprehensive argument, but rather to demonstrate some of the basic thought here. And it's not that God can only create faith in us in Baptism, that's not it at all. God is free to create faith however He so wills, however for hundreds of thousands of people, for many hundreds of years, the first encounter with God's word received was in the waters of Baptism. Also, with all the great and many things said about Baptism in Scripture, it's place as the beginning of the Christian life, where sins are forgiven, where we are united to Jesus Christ, et al it is there, right there in the waters of Baptism that for the vast majority of Christians where the beginnings of the life of faith begins. Can that faith come by other means? Certainly, God is not bound, but considering all the many promises He has attached specifically to Baptism why wouldn't we extol it so highly?

If the king has invited me to a great feast, promising me that I will be satisfied and well fed, sure I might find sustenance elsewhere, but there is the sure promise there where the king has said it is. So it is with Baptism, God has given His absolute promises about Baptism and all it gives us, God is good and gracious and may act elsewhere, but elsewhere isn't where those sure and certain promises are located, but they are present in Holy Baptism. Not of ourselves, but the gift of a good and gracious God.



The oikos, the family household, included mothers, fathers, children, servants, everything. No, we can't be certain that infants are necessarily part of the oikos in those cases in Acts and elsewhere.

The question I think we should ask is why shouldn't we include infants in the universal call to be baptized? If Baptism is all these many and great things, why withhold it from anyone who is capable of receiving it?

Why don't we go out and steal away atheists, or other non-Christians and throw water on them or dunk them in water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Well, for one, that's rude. Our job isn't to force people into the Church, but to proclaim God's good news, baptize and make disciples.

Then why children? Presumably because a Christian parent is going to raise a Christian child, so they are baptized, and raised in the faith. They are taught to pray, they are catechized, they are brought up as Christians. They may leave Christianity later on, that's always possible, but chances are if we call ourselves Christians and if we have children we're going to do what we think is best for them and that includes rearing them up as Christians.



Though it's worth pointing out what may be obvious and that's that it's a very clear case that they had received John's baptism, not Christian baptism. Christian baptism, which the text describes as being "in the name of the Lord Jesus" was administered to them. It's not a re-baptism, but their first baptism, the first time they received that Baptism which until Pentecost had never been done. One who has been baptized into Christ is always baptized into Christ.



A symbolic view of Baptism, at least as it seems to me, comes across a lot like a show. It's just a ritual, something churchly and religiousy that's done as an "experience". To that end, why speak of it so highly as is done throughout the New Testament?

The chief arguments there, that I'm familiar with, are that all these mentions of "Baptism" refer to something else other than regular, normal Baptism but some "spiritual" baptism and thus rendering being baptized with water either

A) Totally worthless or
B) A nice thing to do

Such a baptismal theology has rendered "baptism" to an entirely internal, inward work, and tends to be part of a larger theological pattern of anti-materiality. Traditional Christian baptismal theology is intimately connected to a larger sacramental and incarnational theology that emphasizes the innate goodness of materiality and God's good use of matter to communicate Himself to us and God's redemption of the material world, including our own bodies which will rise again on the Last Day.

Thus, I think a highly spiritualized baptismal theology that renders the materiality of the Sacrament to the position of being either moot or of symbolic importance only is part of a larger theological paradigm that generally has difficulty embracing the goodness of materiality and it's place in the divine work of God in saving and redeeming the whole of creation.

Click to expand...

What I was trying to show with the symbolism in baptism is the contrast between believer baptism and infant baptism. The “infant baptism” is much more the “show” for the spectators without any symbolism I can think of and is certainly not like Christ’s baptism.

I will say watching a believer baptized, I am reminded of the washing a way of sins, the burying of the old life, the coming forth from the grave, the Holy Spirit coming upon the person and the humbling of one’s self (the person witnesses to me). It is a lesson I get that I do not get with infant baptism.

Saving faith comes through hearing (experiencing/accepting) God’s message and not through some miraculous happening at infant baptism. Obtaining saving faith through someone pouring water on you would encourage you to spray water on everyone. Believer baptism requires acceptance, humility, and trust in others, which is all part of Christianity, so spraying water on people would be meaningless without their personal commitment?

Water believer baptism was not meaningless in scripture, so why would you refuse it today?

I also agree there is a huge difference between the baptism of John and the believer baptism into Christ. The big difference being the indwelling Holy Spirit as Paul shows in Acts 19: 1-7.

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

CryptoLutheran said:

That's why we can, and should, place our hope and trust in our Baptism, and not on works which we have done

Click to expand...

Oh, I get it! We should place our hope and trust in works which we've done, but not in works that we've done.

Well, thanks for clearing that up.

John_Galt said:

Oh, I get it! We should place our hope and trust in works which we've done, but not in works that we've done.

Well, thanks for clearing that up.

Click to expand...

Baptism isn't a work we have done. It's God's work and His work alone.

-CryptoLutheran

"And I said to him, "I should like to continue my questions." "Speak on," said he. And I said, "I heard, sir, some teachers maintain that there is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we descended into the water and received remission of our former sins." He said to me, "That was sound doctrine which you heard; for that is really the case. For he who has received remission of his sins ought not to sin any more, but to live in purity. Since, however, you inquire diligently into all things, I will point this also out to you, not as giving occasion for error to those who are to believe, or have lately believed, in the Lord. For those who have now believed, and those who are to believe, have not repentance for their sins; but they have remission of their previous sins. For to those who have been called before these days, the Lord has set repentance. For the Lord, knowing the heart, and foreknowing all things, knew the weakness of men and the manifold wiles of the devil, that he would inflict some evil on the servants of God, and would act wickedly towards them. The Lord, therefore, being merciful, has had mercy on the work of His hand, and has set repentance for them; and He has entrusted to me power over this repentance. And therefore I say to you, that if any one is tempted by the devil, and sins after that great and holy calling. in which the Lord has called His people to everlasting life, he has opportunity to repent but once. But if he should sin frequently after this, and then repent, to such a man his repentance will be of no avail; for with difficulty will he live." And I said, "Sir, I feel that life has come back to me in listening attentively to these commandments; for I know that I shall be saved, if in future I sin no more." And he said, "You will be saved, you and all who keep these commandments."

--The Shepherd of Hermas, III, A.D. 80