Getting Water Baptized Twice?

[shturt678]

If an infant undergoes a water baptism, ie, not dedication, and etc., in the Triune's God's name, even with a fallacious revelation the Triune's God named is based upon, their water baptism is still valid - no teaching necessary prior to water baptism, as in the case of one that can discern. That infant is in the Kingdom of God + received the gift of the Holy Spirit + gift of the remission of sins. Where the issue is, when that infant begins discerning, ie, seduced into a denomination/non-denomination, the initial water baptism becomes null and void at some point God only knows - requires another water baptism in order to receive the Holy Spirit again as departed at some point.

An ol' old so called out-dated view so don't be that concerned. Just ol' old non-modern Lutheran Jack

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

If an infant undergoes a water baptism, ie, not dedication, and etc., in the Triune's God's name, even with a fallacious revelation the Triune's God named is based upon, their water baptism is still valid - no teaching necessary prior to water baptism, as in the case of one that can discern. That infant is in the Kingdom of God + received the gift of the Holy Spirit + gift of the remission of sins. Where the issue is, when that infant begins discerning, ie, seduced into a denomination/non-denomination, the initial water baptism becomes null and void at some point God only knows - requires another water baptism in order to receive the Holy Spirit again as departed at some point.

An ol' old so called out-dated view so don't be that concerned. Just ol' old non-modern Lutheran Jack

Jack, I find your view a bit surprising considering that you carry a Lutheran Icon. Being Lutheran, do you not confess in the third article of the Nicene Creed "I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins,"?

No, I don't believe that it does; what I do believe is that baptism is like our car which we drive every day; one day, we decide to put in in the garage and not use it. Over time we find that walking has lost it's appeal, so we decide to start driving again; we do not need to buy a new car, just get the one we already have out of the garage.

While we can turn away from our faith and baptismal grace, when we return, the blessings of baptism are still there, we just have not used them for a while.

 

[Jig]

I have actually; several. Two under a nationally-awarded professor. I also have a degree in history and ecclesiastical history was one of several concentrations.

You apparently would rather flaunt degrees rather than support your position. Allow me to be the first to cite my sources. Please, by all means, reply back with your own sources. I'm sure your cheerleading buddies will continue to give you praise and reps indiscriminately.

I wrote:

In forming his own doctrines, Luther retained and adopted much of the Roman Catholic baptismal theology. This theology, of course, is heavily influenced by traditional sources. Luther didn't practice infant baptism because he read it in his Bible; he practiced it because of the former influence the Catholic Church had on him.

You wrote:

Luther was sola scriptura. The above is therefore null and void.

While Luther did take a different position on the meaning of baptism than the Roman Church, he still subscribed to a Catholic mode/subject of baptism.

"While adopting much of the Roman Catholic baptismal theology, Luther pointed out that the water of baptism was made a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration by the intrinsic divine power of the word of God." (1)

"Luther freely admitted that infant baptism is neither explicitly commanded or explicitly mentioned in Scripture. There are no "specific passages" referring to infant baptism. The direct witness of Scripture is by itself not strong enough to provide an adequate basis for beginning infant baptism were it not already practiced."(2)

Paul Althaus goes on and lists Luther's use of passages (such as household baptisms, etc.) he used to work around the fact that there exists no explicit biblical support for infant baptism. What is interesting to note here is that Luther never attempted to demonstrate that infant baptism was taught in Scripture. He merely wanted to assure himself that Scripture didn't explicitly denounce it. At the end of the day, Luther's primary appeal was to tradition when it came to the mode/subject of infant baptism.

"Luther was not a puritanical biblicist. He never demanded that the validity of every doctrine and practice be established by an explicit command of Scripture."(3)

---

1. Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer, New Dictionary of Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 72.

2. Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, trans. Robert C. Schultz (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 361.

3. Ibid.

 

[PaladinValer]

You apparently would rather flaunt degrees rather than support your position.

I'm not the one who argues contrary to the majority view.

Allow me to be the first to cite my sources. Please, by all means, reply back with your own sources. I'm sure your cheerleading buddies will continue to give you praise and reps indiscriminately.

Nice ad homs! Attack their persons and not their positions; great tactic!

<snip>

No primary sources? NONE?!I have a primary source; Martin Luther's sermon on 3rd Epiphany, 1528, based on the lectionary of St. Matthew 8:8 (and thereby basing his position ON THE SCRIPTURES ALONE). mlsema08

Rebuttal refuted by Luther's own hand. The position that Martin Luther got his baptismal ideas outside Holy Scripture is therefore invalid and void.

Thank GOD for primary sources!

Now, I think an apology to those who were dissed above is in order, including towards myself, as it seems I know my stuff after all.

 

[Jig]

I'm not the one who argues contrary to the majority view.

Just because a particular belief is a majority view, does not mean it is true.

Nice ad homs! Attack their persons and not their positions; great tactic!

I'm not the one who boasted about being highly educated in the field of church history. If anything you're the one who started the fallacious argument by appealing to authority. After all, you are the one who sat under "nationally awarded" professors.

No primary sources? NONE?!

I have a primary source; Martin Luther's sermon on 3rd Epiphany, 1528, based on the lectionary of St. Matthew 8:8 (and thereby basing his position ON THE SCRIPTURES ALONE). mlsema08

Do you really expect me to read through all that? How about directing me to the specific part that refutes my claim. And don't be so quick to dismiss my sources. They are valid academic sources. Do you believe you have more insight and knowledge about church history then these authors do? Be my guest and feel free to write them a personal letter about how you think their scholarship is inaccurate.

You wanted to know my sources and I listed them.

Rebuttal refuted by Luther's own hand. The position that Martin Luther got his baptismal ideas outside Holy Scripture is therefore invalid and void.

You have not shown me that this is true. I'm not wadding through pages of text. I'd like you to post a snippet from your source that directly refutes my claim.

Now, I think an apology to those who were dissed above is in order, including towards myself, as it seems I know my stuff after all.

Why should I apologize? I see nothing to apologize for.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

You apparently would rather flaunt degrees rather than support your position. Allow me to be the first to cite my sources. Please, by all means, reply back with your own sources. I'm sure your cheerleading buddies will continue to give you praise and reps indiscriminately.

I wrote:


You wrote:


While Luther did take a different position on the meaning of baptism than the Roman Church, he still subscribed to a Catholic mode/subject of baptism.

"While adopting much of the Roman Catholic baptismal theology, Luther pointed out that the water of baptism was made a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration by the intrinsic divine power of the word of God." (1)

"Luther freely admitted that infant baptism is neither explicitly commanded or explicitly mentioned in Scripture. There are no "specific passages" referring to infant baptism. The direct witness of Scripture is by itself not strong enough to provide an adequate basis for beginning infant baptism were it not already practiced."(2)

Paul Althaus goes on and lists Luther's use of passages (such as household baptisms, etc.) he used to work around the fact that there exists no explicit biblical support for infant baptism. What is interesting to note here is that Luther never attempted to demonstrate that infant baptism was taught in Scripture. He merely wanted to assure himself that Scripture didn't explicitly denounce it. At the end of the day, Luther's primary appeal was to tradition when it came to the mode/subject of infant baptism.

"Luther was not a puritanical biblicist. He never demanded that the validity of every doctrine and practice be established by an explicit command of Scripture."(3)

---

1. Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer, New Dictionary of Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 72.

2. Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, trans. Robert C. Schultz (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 361.

3. Ibid.

Jig, good research, I don't know Packer and Ferguson (I do know Massey-Ferguson though ) but I do know of Paul Althaus, a Lutheran himself.

There is no dispute that what you have posted is correct; however without the context of why Luther retained the traditional (yes I used the word Traditional) practice.

We have also the Doctrine of Adaiphora (things of indifference); these would be rites and practices neither commanded nor forbidden by God (Holy Scripture). Infant baptism is one, the use of the exorcism as part of the baptismal rite, signing the Cross, bowing, vestments, candles, incense, fasting etc. etc. etc. are all Adiaphora.

For further reading see the Formula of Concord article X in both the Epitome and Solid Declaration; Excerpts from the Ep. and the SD:

Affirmative Theses.
The Correct and True Doctrine and Confession concerning This Article.
3] 1. For settling also this controversy we unanimously believe, teach, and confess that the ceremonies or church rites which are neither commanded nor forbidden in God's Word, but have been instituted alone for the sake of propriety and good order, are in and of themselves no divine worship, nor even a part of it. Matt. 15:9:In vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
4] 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the congregation of God of every place and every time has the power, according to its circumstances, to change such ceremonies in such manner as may be most useful and edifying to the congregation of God.

For further reading:
The Epitome of the Formula of Concord - Book of Concord
The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord - Book of Concord

Infant baptism has been the standard and the norm in traditional practice, we believe, from the beginning of the Church. While we see Scripture hinting that it's done (the baptism of "whole households" being but one); nowhere in Scripture do we see it being condemned or forbidden.

So we continue this practice in the Church. "Believers baptism" as a confession of faith is mentioned, so it's OK. In believing in the efficacy of one's baptism as an infant, we have another man-made rite called Confirmation, where the confirmand confirms the vows of baptism made on their behalf as an infant.

In the case of adult conversion, we instruct first, and the rite of baptism and confirmation occur at the same time.

Condemn the practice all you like, but Scripture does not; therefore I, like Luther will stay the course regarding infant baptism.

 

[bornofGod888]

Jig:

I actually took the time to read the entire sermon which PaladinValer linked to and, I must confess that, at first, I said to myself, "Why in the world is he providing this?", as it initially seemed to go against the very point which he is apparently seeking to make. IOW, Luther's sermon began by totally denouncing the rite of infant baptism, but apparently because he felt that those who were practicing the same could offer no scriptural basis for doing so and only had their own traditions to support it. However, Luther himself did apparently believe in infant baptism and here is his own summary for said belief:

46. In short, the baptism and consolation of children lie in the word: "Suffer the little children to come unto me; forbid them not; for to such belongeth the kingdom of God." He has spoken this and he does not lie. Therefore it must be right and Christian to bring little children to him. This can only be done in baptism. So also it must be certain that he blesses them, and bestows the kingdom of heaven upon all who come to him, according to the words: "To such belongeth the kingdom of God." Let this be enough for this time.

What makes me laugh (not that this is a humorous topic) is that Luther's own words show his folly and misuse of the scriptures. Yes, after citing Luke 18:15-17 earlier in his sermon as his "proof text"...

"And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called then unto him, and said, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." - Luke 18:15-17

...a "proof text" which only speaks of "infants" being brought to Jesus that He "would touch them" or lay His hands upon them and bless them, Luther wrongly concluded that "This can only be done in baptism", even though none of these "infants" were baptized by Jesus or by anybody else, for that matter. As such, Mr. "Sola scriptura" (Luther) has only botched the scriptures and employed the error of eisegesis.

 

[Jig]

Jig:

I actually took the time to read the entire sermon which PaladinValer linked to and, I must confess that, at first, I said to myself, "Why in the world is he providing this?", as it initially seemed to go against the very point which he is apparently seeking to make. IOW, Luther's sermon began by totally denouncing the rite of infant baptism, but apparently because he felt that those who were practicing the same could offer no scriptural basis for doing so and only had their own traditions to support it. However, Luther himself did apparently believe in infant baptism and here is his own summary for said belief:

I never stated that Luther didn't believed in infant baptism. He most certainly did. I stated that Luther believed in infant baptism primarily because of tradition - and certainly not from explicit Scripture reference.

What makes me laugh (not that this is a humorous topic) is that Luther's own words show his folly and misuse of the scriptures. Yes, after citing Luke 18:15-17 earlier in his sermon as his "proof text"...

"And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called then unto him, and said, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." - Luke 18:15-17

...a "proof text" which only speaks of "infants" being brought to Jesus that He "would touch them" or lay His hands upon them and bless them, Luther wrongly concluded that "This can only be done in baptism", even though none of these "infants" were baptized by Jesus or by anybody else, for that matter. As such, Mr. "Sola scriptura" (Luther) has only botched the scriptures and employed the error of eisegesis.

Yes, I briefly addressed this in my last post. Luther had to run around portions of Scripture in the attempt to show that infant baptism wasn't explicitly denounced in Scripture. However, he was never able to support infant baptism with any explicit Scriptural reference. His primary appeal was to tradition.

I have to run...but I'll list some more references later.

 

[Jig]

Jig, good research, I don't know Packer and Ferguson (I do know Massey-Ferguson though ) but I do know of Paul Althaus, a Lutheran himself.

There is no dispute that what you have posted is correct; however without the context of why Luther retained the traditional (yes I used the word Traditional) practice.

Thanks Mark. I'll reply more to your post later.

 

[bornofGod888]

Jig:

If you ask me, then you don't even need to bother with any more "quotes" from Luther, but you should be focusing instead more on the "quotes" of some of your greatest opponents here. Yes, "quotes" such as these:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7761404-3/#post63676778


Originally Posted by PaladinValer

Did not St. Paul teach directly that baptism is the new circumcision? He he not teach that baptism is in the death, burial/descent, and resurrection of Christ Himself? Was he not a former Jew and pharisee and therefore an expert on the Law and would have known the Law on converts to Judaism requiring all male family members under the convert to receive circumcision REGARDLESS OF AGE alongside?
​

Again:

Now what good did Circumcision do for the eight day old male? Adult also had to endure this when it began. The Infant surely didn't understand and yet it was God's way. Baptism is the circumcision of the heart.

Allow me, if you will, to address this comparison which some are making between the Old Testament rite of circumcision and the New Testament rite of baptism, a comparison which actually refutes their position, and also to plainly answer Rev Randy's question in relation to "what good did circumcision do for the eight day old male?" To answer Rev Randy's question:

In the vast majority of cases, circumcision did no good at all.

Zip.

Nada.

Zero.

Zilch.

Here, let's go back to when circumcision was ordained by God and to the very first instance of circumcision in the Bible and see what we can learn from there:

"And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her. Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old bear? And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham. And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him. And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him." - Genesis 17:9-27

Okay.

Here is where both "infant circumcision" and "adult circumcision" were instituted. Some here, foolishly, if you ask me, are equating "infant circumcision" with "infant baptism", as if that somehow helps their case. Rather than helping their case, "infant circumcision" totally refutes their case. Allow me to explain. Were all "circumcised infants" saved? Of course, they were not. Why, then, are some here preaching "infant baptism" as if it is somehow "salvific", in and of itself, when "infant circumcision", to which it's being equated, certainly was not? In fact, God had such unflattering things as this to say about certain "circumcised infants":

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised; Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart." - Jeremiah 9:25-26

Oh, you can bet your bottom dollar that "all the house of Israel" were circumcised in the foreskins of their flesh as infants, yet God recognized that they were all "uncircumcised in the heart". Yes, whether Old Testament circumcision or New Testament baptism, it has always been a matter of the heart of the individual. Again, by equating baptism with circumcision, certain members here are actually refuting their own erroneous beliefs. Yes, just look to Abraham as an example:

"Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised; that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised." - Romans 4:8-12

Abraham's faith was imputed unto him for righteousness BEFORE he was circumcised. Yes, we read:

"And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness." - Genesis 15:6

Yes, Abraham's faith was imputed to him for righteousness many years before God ever spoke a word to him about "circumcision". In fact, at this point, Ishmael hadn't yet even been conceived or born and he was circumcised when he was 13 years old (Gen. 17:25). IOW, Abraham's faith was imputed unto him for righteousness at least 13 years BEFORE God ever spoke a word to him about "circumcision" and his eventual "circumcision" was merely "a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised" (Rom. 4:11). Yes, even as God had said unto Abraham:

"And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you." - Genesis 17:11

Did you catch that?

God told Abraham that his outward circumcision in the foreskin of his flesh would only be "a token" or an outward sign "of the covenant betwixt me and you". God's covenant with Abraham had already been established before this. That's right and "circumcision", again, was merely "a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised". As such,
by the equating which some here are doing, Abraham's circumcision is equal to "a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being UNBAPTIZED". IOW, "baptism", in and of itself, is not salvific if not PRECEDED BY "saving faith". To this, of course, contrary to the moans of many here, the scriptures agree:

"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a-preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him." - I Peter 3:20-22

Peter said that "baptism" is "the answer of a good conscience toward God". For crying out loud, the very word "conscience" means "with knowledge", so the one being baptized needs to be baptized of their own volition. Not only this, but it's "the answer of a good conscience" in relation to the belief that Jesus Christ has risen from the dead and has now "gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him". Show me any infant that can, as an "answer of its own conscience" or "as a knowledgeable answer" do that. It's not happening. Oh, I can just hear the naysayers now:

NOAH AND HIS FAMILY WERE SAVED BY BAPTISM!

Really?

"By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith." - Hebrews 11:7

Like Abraham, Noah believed God, prior to building the ark, and he "became heir of the righteousness which is by faith". IOW, his "faith" PRECEDED the building of the ark and any symbolic meaning that it had in relation to water baptism. Again, the pattern is sure:

Abraham: Believe first and then be circumcised as a seal of the righteousness which he had by faith.

Noah: Believe first and then build an ark which would lead to symbolic meanings in relation to baptism and the righteousness which he already had by faith.

Jesus Christ: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." - Mark 16:16

"Believing" PRECEDES both "circumcision" and "baptism" or else both are meaningless and ineffective. Again, Paul said:

"But God be thanked, that ye were servants of sin, but he have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." - Romans 6:17-18

Yes, whether in relation to "baptism", as we just read, or whether in relation to "circumcision", as I already covered (Rom. 4:9-12), "believing" must PRECEDE either for either to be effective or salvific. In fact, the gospel which Paul preached ALWAYS had "faith" first. Yes, we read:

"But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above); Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead). But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." - Romans 10:6-10

Yes, the "word of faith" which Paul preached is the same exact "word of faith" which Moses preached unto the second generation of Israelites who came out of Egypt way back in Deuteronomy 30:11-14 and that "word of faith" requires a confession with the mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and belief in the heart that God has raised Him from the dead in order to be saved. When somebody provides me evidence of any newborn infant doing the same, then we'll talk.

Incidentally, although Ishmael was "circumcised" at 13 years of age, which some are equating to "baptism", as if it somehow helps their cause, Ishmael was anything but "saved". In fact, he was "cast out", along with his mother Hagar, and they two represent those who would seek justification or salvation apart from saving faith in Christ (Gal. 4:21-31).
&#12288;

 

[bbbbbbb]

Jig:

If you ask me, then you don't even need to bother with any more "quotes" from Luther, but you should be focusing instead more on the "quotes" of some of your greatest opponents here. Yes, "quotes" such as these:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7761404-3/#post63676778


Originally Posted by PaladinValer

Did not St. Paul teach directly that baptism is the new circumcision? He he not teach that baptism is in the death, burial/descent, and resurrection of Christ Himself? Was he not a former Jew and pharisee and therefore an expert on the Law and would have known the Law on converts to Judaism requiring all male family members under the convert to receive circumcision REGARDLESS OF AGE alongside?
​

Again:



Allow me, if you will, to address this comparison which some are making between the Old Testament rite of circumcision and the New Testament rite of baptism, a comparison which actually refutes their position, and also to plainly answer Rev Randy's question in relation to "what good did circumcision do for the eight day old male?" To answer Rev Randy's question:

In the vast majority of cases, circumcision did no good at all.

Zip.

Nada.

Zero.

Zilch.

Here, let's go back to when circumcision was ordained by God and to the very first instance of circumcision in the Bible and see what we can learn from there:

"And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her. Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old bear? And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham. And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him. And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him." - Genesis 17:9-27

Okay.

Here is where both "infant circumcision" and "adult circumcision" were instituted. Some here, foolishly, if you ask me, are equating "infant circumcision" with "infant baptism", as if that somehow helps their case. Rather than helping their case, "infant circumcision" totally refutes their case. Allow me to explain. Were all "circumcised infants" saved? Of course, they were not. Why, then, are some here preaching "infant baptism" as if it is somehow "salvific", in and of itself, when "infant circumcision", to which it's being equated, certainly was not? In fact, God had such unflattering things as this to say about certain "circumcised infants":

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised; Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart." - Jeremiah 9:25-26

Oh, you can bet your bottom dollar that "all the house of Israel" were circumcised in the foreskins of their flesh as infants, yet God recognized that they were all "uncircumcised in the heart". Yes, whether Old Testament circumcision or New Testament baptism, it has always been a matter of the heart of the individual. Again, by equating baptism with circumcision, certain members here are actually refuting their own erroneous beliefs. Yes, just look to Abraham as an example:

"Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised; that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised." - Romans 4:8-12

Abraham's faith was imputed unto him for righteousness BEFORE he was circumcised. Yes, we read:

"And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness." - Genesis 15:6

Yes, Abraham's faith was imputed to him for righteousness many years before God ever spoke a word to him about "circumcision". In fact, at this point, Ishmael hadn't yet even been conceived or born and he was circumcised when he was 13 years old (Gen. 17:25). IOW, Abraham's faith was imputed unto him for righteousness at least 13 years BEFORE God ever spoke a word to him about "circumcision" and his eventual "circumcision" was merely "a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised" (Rom. 4:11). Yes, even as God had said unto Abraham:

"And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you." - Genesis 17:11

Did you catch that?

God told Abraham that his outward circumcision in the foreskin of his flesh would only be "a token" or an outward sign "of the covenant betwixt me and you". God's covenant with Abraham had already been established before this. That's right and "circumcision", again, was merely "a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised". As such,
by the equating which some here are doing, Abraham's circumcision is equal to "a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being UNBAPTIZED". IOW, "baptism", in and of itself, is not salvific if not PRECEDED BY "saving faith". To this, of course, contrary to the moans of many here, the scriptures agree:

"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a-preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him." - I Peter 3:20-22

Peter said that "baptism" is "the answer of a good conscience toward God". For crying out loud, the very word "conscience" means "with knowledge", so the one being baptized needs to be baptized of their own volition. Not only this, but it's "the answer of a good conscience" in relation to the belief that Jesus Christ has risen from the dead and has now "gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him". Show me any infant that can, as an "answer of its own conscience" or "as a knowledgeable answer" do that. It's not happening. Oh, I can just hear the naysayers now:

NOAH AND HIS FAMILY WERE SAVED BY BAPTISM!

Really?

"By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith." - Hebrews 11:7

Like Abraham, Noah believed God, prior to building the ark, and he "became heir of the righteousness which is by faith". IOW, his "faith" PRECEDED the building of the ark and any symbolic meaning that it had in relation to water baptism. Again, the pattern is sure:

Abraham: Believe first and then be circumcised as a seal of the righteousness which he had by faith.

Noah: Believe first and then build an ark which would lead to symbolic meanings in relation to baptism and the righteousness which he already had by faith.

Jesus Christ: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." - Mark 16:16

"Believing" PRECEDES both "circumcision" and "baptism" or else both are meaningless and ineffective. Again, Paul said:

"But God be thanked, that ye were servants of sin, but he have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." - Romans 6:17-18

Yes, whether in relation to "baptism", as we just read, or whether in relation to "circumcision", as I already covered (Rom. 4:9-12), "believing" must PRECEDE either for either to be effective or salvific. In fact, the gospel which Paul preached ALWAYS had "faith" first. Yes, we read:

"But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above); Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead). But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." - Romans 10:6-10

Yes, the "word of faith" which Paul preached is the same exact "word of faith" which Moses preached unto the second generation of Israelites who came out of Egypt way back in Deuteronomy 30:11-14 and that "word of faith" requires a confession with the mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and belief in the heart that God has raised Him from the dead in order to be saved. When somebody provides me evidence of any newborn infant doing the same, then we'll talk.

Incidentally, although Ishmael was "circumcised" at 13 years of age, which some are equating to "baptism", as if it somehow helps their cause, Ishmael was anything but "saved". In fact, he was "cast out", along with his mother Hagar, and they two represent those who would seek justification or salvation apart from saving faith in Christ (Gal. 4:21-31).
&#12288;

Excellent point. The circumcision=baptism argument fails on many levels.

1. Circumcision never has been understood to be a sacrament in Judaism - imparting grace to the recipient.
2. Circumcision is the means by which male members of Israel are identified as being of Israel. It is analogous to christening, not baptism.
3. Circumcision was only for males. To carry the analogy into Christianity one would only baptize the male children and not the female children.
4. Circumcision has nothing to do with faith in Israel's God, but everything to do with national identification. A very large number of Jewish men today are out-and-out atheists even though they have been properly circumcised.

 

[Andrea411]

Where there is any doubt of the validity of a baptism, a conditional baptism may be performed. I forget the exact formula for it in the Book of Common Prayer, but it goes something like this:

"If you have not already been baptized, then I baptize you, [name], in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Where there is any doubt as to whether or not someone has already been validly baptized, Anglicans do not perform un-conditional baptism. We believe that it is God himself who actually accomplishes the baptism, and that he only uses the "outward and visible signs" of the sacrament as the means to do it. To intentionally un-conditionally re-baptize someone who is understood to already have been validly baptized is therefore blasphemous, and a very serious sin.

... how serious... is it up there with rape, murder or is it more like running a red light which could have serious consequences....

 

[Crandaddy]

... how serious... is it up there with rape, murder or is it more like running a red light which could have serious consequences....

Let me put it this way: Anglicans, Catholics, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, and others believe that Holy Baptism is actually efficacious of the grace that it signifies. It is analogous to praying the "sinner's prayer" and being "saved" in evangelical Protestant churches. It is by being baptized that we are cleansed of the stain of original sin, and are born again and quickened by the Holy Spirit. We believe that Baptism is the sacrament whereby this is ordinarily accomplished.

If a person who holds this view intentionally (i.e. with knowledge of the original baptism) re-baptizes someone or submits to re-baptism him/herself, then that person is basically willfully and knowingly denying and rejecting the Spiritual rebirth of the person being baptized.

This is why it's such a serious sin.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Jig:

<snip>

...a "proof text" which only speaks of "infants" being brought to Jesus that He "would touch them" or lay His hands upon them and bless them, Luther wrongly concluded that "This can only be done in baptism <snip>

No, you are taking things out of context. It has been the tradition of the Church, long before the reformation that children who are brought forward during the distribution of the Eucharist are blessed, usually with both the laying on of hands and the sign of the cross; baptized or not.

Luther quoted that part of Scripture to illustrate that Christ did not turn children away (as some adults wanted to do); so we should not turn children away from the font (as some adults still want to do).

 

[bornofGod888]

No, you are taking things out of context. It has been the tradition of the Church, long before the reformation that children who are brought forward during the distribution of the Eucharist are blessed, usually with both the laying on of hands and the sign of the cross; baptized or not.

Luther quoted that part of Scripture to illustrate that Christ did not turn children away (as some adults wanted to do); so we should not turn children away from the font (as some adults still want to do).

I'm not taking anything out of context. Again, here is Luther, in his own words:

46. In short, the baptism and consolation of children lie in the word: "Suffer the little children to come unto me; forbid them not; for to such belongeth the kingdom of God." He has spoken this and he does not lie. Therefore it must be right and Christian to bring little children to him. This can only be done in baptism. So also it must be certain that he blesses them, and bestows the kingdom of heaven upon all who come to him, according to the words: "To such belongeth the kingdom of God." Let this be enough for this time.

Luther said that "the baptism and consolation of children lie in the word: 'Suffer the little children to come unto me; forbid them not; for to such belongeth the kingdom of God'". He continued on to say that "This can ONLY be done in baptism", yet, it wasn't "done in baptism" in the very text which he cited! What desperate nonsense.

 

[Andrea411]

Let me put it this way: Anglicans, Catholics, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, and others believe that Holy Baptism is actually efficacious of the grace that it signifies. It is analogous to praying the "sinner's prayer" and being "saved" in evangelical Protestant churches. It is by being baptized that we are cleansed of the stain of original sin, and are born again and quickened by the Holy Spirit. We believe that Baptism is the sacrament whereby this is ordinarily accomplished.

If a person who holds this view intentionally (i.e. with knowledge of the original baptism) re-baptizes someone or submits to re-baptism him/herself, then that person is basically willfully and knowingly denying and rejecting the Spiritual rebirth of the person being baptized.

This is why it's such a serious sin.

and if we sin He is faithful to forgives us our sins......

I was baptized LDS - I had actually been saved a few weeks earlier but when LDS showed up etc etc... if I had gone to an Anglican church would they have baptized me or told me to accept the LDS baptism? LDS baptize in the name of the Father , Son and Holy Spirit - they think they are three separate gods...

 

[Crandaddy]

and if we sin He is faithful to forgives us our sins......

I was baptized LDS - I had actually been saved a few weeks earlier but when LDS showed up etc etc... if I had gone to an Anglican church would they have baptized me or told me to accept the LDS baptism?

Most, if not all, Anglicans do not recognize LDS baptism as valid. The problem, I believe, is that their understanding of God is radically different than that of Christians (actually, Mormons believe in an entirely different god). So, if the LDS baptism is the only baptism you'd received, then every Anglican body I know of would at least conditionally baptize you.

If you don't mind me asking, have you ever received any other baptism besides the LDS baptism?

 

[Andrea411]

Most, if not all, Anglicans do not recognize LDS baptism as valid. The problem, I believe, is that their understanding of God is radically different than that of Christians (actually, Mormons believe in an entirely different god). So, if the LDS baptism is the only baptism you'd received, then every Anglican body I know of would at least conditionally baptize you.

If you don't mind me asking, have you ever received any other baptism besides the LDS baptism?

Yes, I posted here my experience and why I was re-baptized. I was a Christian when I went to LDS and many are - but especially before the internet it was very difficult to tell the errors in LDS. To me the most glaring is that they are actually polytheistic, but they assured me they believed in the Trinity. But it is a trinity of three gods.... it is a shame that so many are pulled into LDS bc they misrepresent their beliefs. But you can actually be a Christian and be going there until you run into the errors. My guess is that there is a large turnover bc of the internet, Unfortunately, mormons when they come out of LDS.. tend to become atheists. God bless and thanks for asking, andrea

 

[Jig]

Luther said that "the baptism and consolation of children lie in the word: 'Suffer the little children to come unto me; forbid them not; for to such belongeth the kingdom of God'". He continued on to say that "This can ONLY be done in baptism", yet, it wasn't "done in baptism" in the very text which he cited! What desperate nonsense.

I still disagree with you and PaladinValer. This "primary source" has not dismantled my "secondary sources". I'm not sure what the difficulty is here. I'm guessing PaladinValer doesn't want to admit he might have spoken too harshly against my original claim. This is understandable.

But looking at the snippet you provided, it's interesting to note that the passage Luther uses is obviously not explicitly addressing infant baptism. Even Luther appears to admit this when he comments that this passage merely implies an activity that can only happen at baptism. So, in a roundabout way Luther has confirmed to himself that the Scriptures provide enough evidence to not impugn infant baptism as a legitimate traditional practice. This is something I actually mentioned in one of my past posts and something Paul Althaus in his book on Luther's theology picked up on.

Like I've stated before, Luther didn't practice infant baptism because he thought the Scriptures explicitly prescribed it. He instead practiced it primarily because he felt that if it was illegitimate to baptize babies then most men throughout history could not have been true Christians. His sermon was in defense of the tradition he was ALREADY following.

The Lutherans themselves defended such an idea after Luther's death in the Book of Concord:

"Now if God did not accept the Baptism of infants, he would not have given any of them the Holy Spirit nor any part of him; in short, all this time down to the present day no man on earth could have been a Christian." (1)

1. Theodore G. Tappert, The Book of Concord (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 442-3.

 

[bornofGod888]

I still disagree with you and PaladinValer. This "primary source" has not dismantled my "secondary sources". I'm not sure what the difficulty is here. I'm guessing PaladinValer doesn't want to admit he might have spoken too harshly against my original claim. This is understandable.

But looking at the snippet you provided, it's interesting to note that the passage Luther uses is obviously not explicitly addressing infant baptism. Even Luther appears to admit this when he comments that this passage merely implies an activity that can only happen at baptism. So, in a roundabout way Luther has confirmed to himself that the Scriptures provide enough evidence to not impugn infant baptism as a legitimate traditional practice. This is something I actually mentioned in one of my past posts and something Paul Althaus in his book on Luther's theology picked up on.

Like I've stated before, Luther didn't practice infant baptism because he thought the Scriptures explicitly prescribed it. He instead practiced it primarily because he felt that if it was illegitimate to baptize babies then most men throughout history could not have been true Christians. His sermon was in defense of the tradition he was ALREADY following.

The Lutherans themselves defended such an idea after Luther's death in the Book of Concord:

"Now if God did not accept the Baptism of infants, he would not have given any of them the Holy Spirit nor any part of him; in short, all this time down to the present day no man on earth could have been a Christian." (1)

1. Theodore G. Tappert, The Book of Concord (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 442-3.

You must be terribly misunderstanding the intent behind my posts. For starters, from what I've read (which isn't everything), I agree with your position, so I don't know why you seemingly think that I'm challenging anything that you've said. Is it because I've addressed certain posts to you as opposed to addressing them to others? If so, then the only reason why I've addressed them to you as opposed to them is because I don't believe that they'll hear a word that I say, no matter how scripturally sound it is. Anyhow, I certainly hope that you don't believe that I'm in any way, shape or form in agreement with PaladinValer's position, because I'm most certainly not.