infant baptism

Rev, filo, DaSem, Marv....anybody out there?

Oops, better add some gals....Lillamb, PW?

I would love to help you, but I'm not so good at explaining. Welcome, heal103!

Welcome to TC!

There are others here who are far more qualified to answer your question!

Mark

Well, as the saying goes, you can tell them, but you can't tell them much.

Really the first thing is, if you have any basic problem the person is not a fundamentalist. They are a stereotypical fundamentalist.

I try to distinguish the two, for a fundamentalist is basically defined by a set of fundamentals. When you run into a stereotypical fundamentalist, he tends to major on minors, seemingly thinking the most important things are things like you use only a KJV, or women must not wear any form of pants, at least what he recognizes as pants, or things like that. Those are actually not fundamentalists, but people gripped by a nonbiblical folk religion.

What you will find is that his position on baptism is reached through the loss of knowledge that occurred in many places, and especially things like the original languages and such, he's really doing the same as a Catholic would, relying on an authority figure or figures and not scripture to reach his position.

Folk religion beliefs are among the strongest held beliefs people have, they can even be taken to the point where they realize they don't even know why they believe it and even be shown a direct contradictory proof and yet the vast majority of the time they will cling to their belief, they were usually taught it by people they had the faith of a child in and so it's clung to as if from God himself.

I thought I'd state the problem before trying to go on to a way to present it.

Marv

BigNorsk said:

Well, as the saying goes, you can tell them, but you can't tell them much.

Really the first thing is, if you have any basic problem the person is not a fundamentalist. They are a stereotypical fundamentalist.

I try to distinguish the two, for a fundamentalist is basically defined by a set of fundamentals. When you run into a stereotypical fundamentalist, he tends to major on minors, seemingly thinking the most important things are things like you use only a KJV, or women must not wear any form of pants, at least what he recognizes as pants, or things like that. Those are actually not fundamentalists, but people gripped by a nonbiblical folk religion.

What you will find is that his position on baptism is reached through the loss of knowledge that occurred in many places, and especially things like the original languages and such, he's really doing the same as a Catholic would, relying on an authority figure or figures and not scripture to reach his position.

Folk religion beliefs are among the strongest held beliefs people have, they can even be taken to the point where they realize they don't even know why they believe it and even be shown a direct contradictory proof and yet the vast majority of the time they will cling to their belief, they were usually taught it by people they had the faith of a child in and so it's clung to as if from God himself.

I thought I'd state the problem before trying to go on to a way to present it.

Marv

Click to expand...

I'v always liked: You can tell them a long ways off, but you can't tell them nuthin up close!

Now heres's the overview of how I'd approach it. First, I'd try to set some ground rules. Usually with a fundamentalist, that isn't too hard.

You should be able to agree that scripture is the norm and rule. If he want's to say it has to be KJV I'd fight against that, you want to be able to go to the original language to be able to see if what he is saying the English word means is actually the one of often several that is intended.

And then I would ask him to tell you what he believes.

It will usually go something like, only adult believers, by immersion (submersion), with baptism being an outward sign of an inward change.

You may ask a couple clarification questions if necessary, you should really listen to him to know what he believes.

Then you lay out the Lutheran position. That baptism is fundamentally the gospel in another form, where God baptizes us and thus we are united to Christ in both his death and his resurrection. Baptism saves us through faith exactly as the other forms of the gospel save us through faith, that salvation is by grace solely for Christ's sake.

There is no infant and adult baptism but really only baptism. Infants were included in the Old Covenant, infants are included in the New and so they receive baptism exactly the same as adults.

Since baptism saves us, we know that it does not rely on a characteristic of the people such as their age or else the bible would be teaching a works based salvation and salvation is by grace through faith for Christ's sake alone.

That baptism saves is not to say that everyone who is baptized will be saved in the end. While only God know the status of an individual, Lutherans do not teach that baptism is a magic get out of hell free card.

And while Lutherans teach baptism is necessary they do not teach it is absolutely necessary.

Ask him if that is how he understood the Lutheran belief in baptism or if he thought something wrong like it was works based.

Usually he will say Lutherans are teaching works based salvation. If he does point out that it is Lutherans who really formulated the solas. The material principle of Lutheranism, that which you must understand to understand Lutherans is that justification is by grace alone through faith alone for Christ's sake alone. What he is saying would violate that and so is obviously not the Lutheran position. That would be a good time to get him to agree that people must have faith to be justified.

He may also question if infants can believe. Ask him when he thinks people can have faith, what age would he say? He might say 2 he might say 10 who knows. Then ask him if he is a father at what age his children could show they recognized him and his wife. Often that's much different. Ask him why he thinks his children could recognize him but could not recognize their father in heaven.

And then you go back to faith. If he doesn't think children can have faith, then ask how they are saved? He will probably answer something about the age of accountability. Now you ask him who it is that is teaching salvation without faith?

And usually at this point immersion will come up. That shoudl be fairly simple because the only mode that can be proven from scripture is pouring or sprinkling. No scripture proves immersion to be submersion.

By that point, you've given him something to chew on. Ask to get back together and you will be able to show him from the bible why Lutherans believe what they do in the areas of dispute.

Marv

For a good understanding up front. One of the best sources I have found is the ISBE it's available online at http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?action=Alpha&letter=B

They really do a pretty good job of presenting the Baptist, nonimmersionist and Lutherans positions. Though I would say they are weak in saying the Lutheran position as far as explaining how baptism is a form of the gospel.

But it's a good place to start.

Marv

Matthew 19:14 - Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."

Click to expand...

He did not say, "I will receive those of you who can understand my message but we'll have to wait for your babies."

Infant faith?

Ps. 22:9 - Yet you are he who took me from the womb;
you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts.

Click to expand...

Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a "born again" experience—that is, after one has "accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior." At the instant of acceptance, when he is "born again," the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after "being saved," goes to heaven anyway.

As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to "accept Jesus" in order to reach heaven.

Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Fundamentalists try to ignore the historical writings from the early Church which clearly indicate the legitimacy of infant baptism. They attempt to sidestep appeals to history by saying baptism requires faith and, since children are incapable of having faith, they cannot be baptized. It is true that Christ prescribed instruction and actual faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:19–20), but his general law on the necessity of baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction on the subjects of baptism. Although infants are included in the law he establishes, requirements of that law that are impossible to meet because of their age are not applicable to them. They cannot be expected to be instructed and have faith when they are incapable of receiving instruction or manifesting faith. The same was true of circumcision; faith in the Lord was necessary for an adult convert to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers.

Furthermore, the Bible never says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants"; it simply says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation." Yet Fundamentalists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. Therefore, the Fundamentalist himself makes an exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation. He can thus scarcely criticize the Catholic for making the exact same exception for baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation.

It becomes apparent, then, that the Fundamentalist position on infant baptism is not really a consequence of the Bible’s strictures, but of the demands of Fundamentalism’s idea of salvation. In reality, the Bible indicates that infants are to be baptized, that they too are meant to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Further, the witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings must once and for all silence those who criticize the Catholic Church’s teaching on infant baptism. The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).

Well of course being saved requires faith. Bible is clear about that. But it can get a bit complicated if one trys to really humanly understand exactly what happens when. For we see that the word of God is both the source of faith and it's object. So too baptism is both the source of faith and it's object.

A common fundamentalist complaint is that they hear people say of course they are saved, they've been baptized. Well it's really hard to know exactly what people mean when they make general statements like that. Some might be taking a solid everyone who has been baptized has been saved by that work forever and they have to do nothing, not even believe. But for others it's really just the same as saying they are saved because they believe the gospel. Which a fundamentalist would hear and not give a second thought.

It gets back to the fundamentalist needs to understand that baptism is the gospel, and it is not our work, but the work of God.

Usually what you will find is the fundamentalist trys to argue against the Catholic mistakes for most fundamentalists today seem to think that Lutherans are just Catholics without the Pope.

Might also be a good time to introduce the idea of adiaphora. Some fundamentalists go by the regulative priniciple of worship. That is that anything not specifically permitted in the New Testament for worship is prohibited. So since they can't see that the references to psalms includes musical instruments they take it that musical instruments are not permitted in worship, even though they clearly have been, throughout the Bible. Or in a variation, people would permit the instruments they see specifically in scripture, but that's actually fairly rare.

It's sad because so much knowledge of the bible seems to be lacking in many so called fundamentalist churches. It's almost like they locked themselves away and as their untrained pastors missed things in the bible they seem forever lost.

For instance in baptism, you will surely hear there is no baptism of infants in the bible. Well of course we know infants are included in nations and families, the meaning of the words include them, but there is indeed one absolute case of infant baptism in the bible.

That the baptism unto Moses mentioned in 1 Cor 10:2. There God baptized (important point God baptized) the whole nation of Israel. Well it obviously from the whole nation being baptized that infants were too. But the proof goes beyond the meaning of the word. For the infants are mentioned in scripture. Deut 1:39. And what is more the mode is told us in Psalms 77, where we are told God poured water on the people from the clouds. (obviously rain so it would support sprinkling or pouring) There was an example of immersion associated with the baptism unto Moses as well, the Egyptians were immersed.

The baptism unto Moses was received by those God had chosen to receive the promised land. Just like it is normal for those to receive the promised land of heaven to be baptized so it was for those who were to receive the promised land of Israel. But not absolutely necessary, what was absolutely necessary was faith in God. Rahab and her family were saved through her faith in God even though they had not been baptized. And those who were baptized and turned from God having faith in false gods, they perished without receiving the promised land. The infants did. So you could say the baptism of the infants saved them, while the baptism of their parents did not save them. Matter of fact we see a reference to the book of life. Exodus 32:30-34. We see that the people worshipped gods of gold and Moses tried to make atonement for them, even offering himself to be removed from the book of life, but God refused him. And said those who worshipped the gold gods would be blotted from the book.

That's an important thing because usually mixed in with fundamentalist beliefs on baptism is the once saved always saved, and here we have an example how God retains control of his books and even being written in them does not mean one cannot be removed. Even though baptized by God which they clearly walked in faith at the time, they turned to other gods and lost all the promises.

The fundamentalist will surely argue that's not talking about Christian baptism. You then turn to
2Ti 3:16 NET Every scripture23 is inspired by God24 and useful for teaching, for reproof,25 for correction, and for training in righteousness,

And you ask him, is every scripture useful for teaching? Why exclude this, God didn't exclude it. And then you try to get him to agree to something. Can he see how what scripture calls baptism that is the basic meaning of the word is not restricted to immersion? Can he admit that infants were baptized?

I like the baptism unto Moses because we just see such a complete story related to it. Int he New Testament baptisms, scripture just doesn't follow the people and tell us all those details. Details which completely explode the whole idea put forward as believer's baptism.

Marv

we are commanded to baptize ALL NATIONS, not just people of a certain age

also look to the story of the jailer at Phillipi -- he brought his ENTIRE FAMILY, not just adults, to be baptized