Infant Baptism

[Rev Randy]

So our baptism is not like Jesus. Where is it stated that "christian baptism includes babies?

Babies are a part of the household.
13 And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 15 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

 

[Elder 111]

Because an act is a work.

The work of choosing salvation is just that, a work.

-CryptoLutheran

:o

It is ridiculous to call that work. But even so what is the evil in that? For God rewards good works.
Mat. 25: 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
If choosing/deciding to serve God is work, imagine what this is. Thank God for works and rewarding it.

 

[Elder 111]

Babies are a part of the household.
13 And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 15 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

Did you see baptism in there? I did not. Children were always dedicated to God. Jesus blessed them but not even Jesus was baptized as a child. Yes commit children unto God but baptism is for the persons to do as a sign of their own commitment/decision to serve God when their are able to make such a choice.

 

[Rev Randy]

Did you see baptism in there? I did not. Children were always dedicated to God. Jesus blessed them but not even Jesus was baptized as a child. Yes commit children unto God but baptism is for the persons to do as a sign of their own commitment/decision to serve God when their are able to make such a choice.

Yes, I see baptism as a part of that. Did I see the word "baptism"? No. But I see it in this verse speaking of the same "Coming to Christ".

And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.

 

[Elder 111]

Yes, I see baptism as a part of that. Did I see the word "baptism"? No. But I see it in this verse speaking of the same "Coming to Christ".

And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.

Did he have children if so how many children did he have? How old were they?
You do realize that you have treated this account in support of baptizing babies when no mention is made of such in the passage. May whole family consist of person over 20. Who says that his whole did not consist of all persons over 25, or 30? Is that out of the question?

 

[Rev Randy]

Did he have children if so how many children did he have? How old were they?
You do realize that you have treated this account in support of baptizing babies when no mention is made of such in the passage. May whole family consist of person over 20. Who says that his whole did not consist of all persons over 25, or 30? Is that out of the question?

And you doing the same. How do you know there were not seven newborns in the house.The KJV says :
Matthew 19:14
King James Version (KJV)
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children,and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Now I'm aware you do not see baptism as coming to Christ. I do.
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
I'm not concerned that a babe of mine isn't able to grasp the "believe " part. I'll teach them that from a newborn until they leave the house. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
Now I'll toss something right back at you. Show me in scripture where it's even alluded to as being wrong to baptize the little ones.
Why did the Hebrew circumcise infants? One reason was because of command. Do you know the other reason? The main reason. Should they not have waited until the child was old enough to understand? Better yet until they could make the decision on their own?
It's clear we have differing mindsets. Here is mine:
I decide for my little child as that is my duty. I will teach that Child as that is my duty. But my faith is not in my teaching. I have faith that God will finish the work He began concerning faith. With my little one that began at Baptism. I am not of the school that a child has a right to choose whether or not to be a Christian. A little one should not be given choices like that in a Christian home. If we can cause a little one to believe in Santa and the tooth fairy, Christ (the Truth) should not be that difficult. You do realize that parents and even replacement parents are charged with teaching the child the Way at the Baptism, aren't you.
And if it's just symbolic as so many say, why does it concern those who say such? Apparently they see it as something more than they admit to.

 

[RisingSpirit]

For our faithful Particular Baptists:


John Calvin's wrote

That the efficacy of Baptism isn't
in the sacrament itself, but it's
God "who washes and purifies us"
(Institutes; Bk. 4, Ch. 15, Sec. 14)
...a "fulfillment in Christ" (Antidote
to Trent).

"All the divine gifts held forth in
baptism are found in Christ alone"
(Institutes; Bk. 4, Ch. 15, Sec. 6)


Probably most pertinent to our
discussion:

The sacraments "confer nothing,
and avail nothing, if not received
in faith" (Institutes; Bk. 4, Ch. 14,
Sec. 17).

[ The doctrine here being that
this reception-in-faith can occur
after the event. ]

There's no presumptive regeneration
in this !

Baptism has efficacy for infants only
if they later come to faith.

 

[Elder 111]

And you doing the same. How do you know there were not seven newborns in the house.The KJV says :
Matthew 19:14
King James Version (KJV)
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children,and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Now I'm aware you do not see baptism as coming to Christ. I do.
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
I'm not concerned that a babe of mine isn't able to grasp the "believe " part. I'll teach them that from a newborn until they leave the house. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
Now I'll toss something right back at you. Show me in scripture where it's even alluded to as being wrong to baptize the little ones.
Why did the Hebrew circumcise infants? One reason was because of command. Do you know the other reason? The main reason. Should they not have waited until the child was old enough to understand? Better yet until they could make the decision on their own?
It's clear we have differing mindsets. Here is mine:
I decide for my little child as that is my duty. I will teach that Child as that is my duty. But my faith is not in my teaching. I have faith that God will finish the work He began concerning faith. With my little one that began at Baptism. I am not of the school that a child has a right to choose whether or not to be a Christian. A little one should not be given choices like that in a Christian home. If we can cause a little one to believe in Santa and the tooth fairy, Christ (the Truth) should not be that difficult. You do realize that parents and even replacement parents are charged with teaching the child the Way at the Baptism, aren't you.
And if it's just symbolic as so many say, why does it concern those who say such? Apparently they see it as something more than they admit to.

You must realize that I agree with you in teaching and taking advantish of all the time that we have in enlightening our children about God. Duet. 11: And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. We who call ourselves Christians are failing miserably in this area.
Baptism nevertheless is for when the child now says I accept what you have taught me and I am making my own decision to follow God, I will get baptize. Getting a little baby baptize does not mean that we secure then in Christ. When they make that decision themselves says that they have personally accepted Jesus that is of great importance. God requires personal decisive commitment and baptism is the sign of that.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I see.

But how is everyone not saved if God desires it?

Because we reject it, it's what we do best.

Since you say that humans are wholly passive in salvation; receiving without acting, like a dead body receives. Becoming alive only when God gives life (presumably eternal life).

And if there is any element of human action, like rejecting the offered salvation or accepting it, then aren't you really a synergist according to your previous statements?

We can reject it, and we most often do. We're sinners, and our natural disposition is to reject God, to flee from Him in our guilt, in our shame, in our sin. That's what sinners do. That's why grace is a radical thing, it declares us, rebellious lot that we are, children; and not only says that, but does that, for us.

The will is active, our will being sinful and dead in sin, does act, but its action is to turn away from God, to reject Him. That's what natural, sinful human works do, it's what a sinful human will does. That's why we need grace. Grace doesn't wait for us to offer our yes, grace comes with God's yes to and for us, and struggle though we will, grace acts upon us anyway.

Why then are some saved and not others? Good question.

Lutherans call this the Crux Theologorum, the Theologian's Cross. The most frustrating and unanswerable question of theology. It's a paradox that we can't solve. When we try to answer it, we are usually left with rejecting one part of Scripture or the other. Calvinism is one error in trying to resolve the paradox, by saying Christ died only for the elect; Arminianism is the other error in trying to resolve the paradox, by saying that human beings contribute their share to God's work in salvation. Lutheranism rejects both, and asserts the paradox is a paradox, and it's not our business to resolve it because, this side of eternity, it can't be resolved. Only God in His infinite and Divine wisdom knows how it all works out, and that should be sufficient for us to trust Him.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jipsah]

It is ridiculous to call that work.

Thus speaks your doctrine.

But even so what is the evil in that? For God rewards good works.

With salvation?

 

[Strong in Him]

Did you see baptism in there? I did not. Children were always dedicated to God. Jesus blessed them but not even Jesus was baptized as a child.

He was circumcised as a child - as were all male Jews. They weren't old enough to understand, agree or choose, and may have later turned away from the Jewish faith, or not even been brought up by believing parents.
God commanded Abraham, the man, to be circumcised as a sign of the covenant; he was old enough to understand, as were his family, servants etc - from then on, circumcision was done when the male was only 8 days old.

 

[shturt678]

Dear friend and brother in the Lord,

I reckon that we depend on God wholly for everything.

"....depend on God..." I think we forgot about one small detail again and that is most of us today have a "another Jesus," (IICor.11:4) unknowingly of course. Baptism that saves these small little ones and these small details, hmmmm....:o First and foremost wouldn't you agree we need the Genuine God aboard baptizing these infants in connection with the valid Triune God's Name where these small infants acquire the Kingdom of God?

Saint Paul said "in him we live and move and have our being".

"....in him..." is a pregnant expression and would derail this thread if addressed this at this point, however well put.

That Paul chap was such a philosopher-theologian at times!

In the letter of the Scriptures, need to delete "philosopher."

Anyway, God gives us graces, gifts if you will, and we respond by making good or not good use of them.

"God gives" only to those that do not hinder the infants from entering the Kingdom, wouldn't you agree?

For example, God gives us life and we respond by living either a good life or a bad one.

Now most of us will admit we live a pretty second rate, rather bad, life even if we wish we were living otherwise.

"most of us" are not even in the Kingdom of God, thinking we are of course, eg, Matt.20:1-16 & 22:1-14, wouldn't you agree?

And we all, I reckon, will admit to God that we didn't do anything more than he wanted from us even if we were pretty much perfect.

Yet so few of us have been perfect in that way.

So, nearly all of us will stand before God in need of mercy because we totally messed everything up.

That's where one more grace comes in, it's the biggest and best grace, because it is Jesus Christ.

God gives us Jesus and we do not deserve him.

God calls us to believe and gives grace to believe and we respond by either believing or not

.

That's where another very ancient and totally universal grace from God comes in.

Universal atonement, yes. Sola gratia, yes. "universal grace," no. Grace has always had its limits, eg, Matt.11, 14.

God gives us freedom to use or misuse his gifts.

Do you agree?

Hey, I agree in spirit of your coherent response, but have to disagree, only to a degree this time, to the letter of your letter.

Whoops!

I ought to have written the above in a different thread!

This one is about baptism!

In compliance due to "Infant baptism" with these precious little ones depend on their parents and God for everything, providing in the Kingdom, ie, "in or not in" the Kingdom is the 400 pound gorilla in the room Having Kona Coffee with you this morning.

And most of us receive baptism quite passively as babies!

Most of us today either receive a spiritual baptismal rebirth or a water baptism in "another Name" hence invalid, ie, thinking it's valid of course due to IIThess.2:9-12 & Rev.13:14b.

Aint that grand! God comes to us when we're helpless.

Just like saint Paul said, Romans 5:6 When we were still helpless, at the appointed time, Christ died for the godless.

I value your fellowship and friendship hence went easy on your words, enjoying Kona coffee with your person KonaCoffe, oh, sorry, MoreCoffee.

 

[Rev Randy]

You must realize that I agree with you in teaching and taking advantish of all the time that we have in enlightening our children about God. Duet. 11: And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. We who call ourselves Christians are failing miserably in this area.
Baptism nevertheless is for when the child now says I accept what you have taught me and I am making my own decision to follow God, I will get baptize. Getting a little baby baptize does not mean that we secure then in Christ. When they make that decision themselves says that they have personally accepted Jesus that is of great importance. God requires personal decisive commitment and baptism is the sign of that.

Please show me scripture that we are to wait for our children to understand. You have none. You say that about baptism not because of scripture but because you've been taught that by men. Do you know when baptising children began and when some began questioning it? I assure you that Martian Luther did not object and that was not listed in his complaints. So the problem with it began after not in the reformation. It's a new concept.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Double predestination posits that God chooses the elect to salvation, and passes over the reprobate, thus there is a segment of the human population that was born to be damned, without hope of salvation.

Lutherans believe Christ died for everyone, and that God desires everyone to be saved. Everyone means everyone. Nobody is passed over, the Gospel goes out to all, for all, and it has the power to save all.

-CryptoLutheran

I see.

But how is everyone not saved if God desires it?

Because we reject it, it's what we do best.

Dead folk, like dead wills, do not DO anything. They no more reject than they accept. They are inert - except for decaying because of the activity of living things that feed on the corpse.

So, how does a dead will reject?

I do not believe that a fallen person has a deceased will.

Do you?

Since you say that humans are wholly passive in salvation; receiving without acting, like a dead body receives. Becoming alive only when God gives life (presumably eternal life).

And if there is any element of human action, like rejecting the offered salvation or accepting it, then aren't you really a synergist according to your previous statements?

We can reject it, and we most often do. We're sinners, and our natural disposition is to reject God, to flee from Him in our guilt, in our shame, in our sin. That's what sinners do. That's why grace is a radical thing, it declares us, rebellious lot that we are, children; and not only says that, but does that, for us.

The will is active, our will being sinful and dead in sin, does act, but its action is to turn away from God, to reject Him. That's what natural, sinful human works do, it's what a sinful human will does.

My comment above applies to what you wrote here.

I greyed out my earlier post because what you wrote didn't really address it.

I'll copy & past it below where you start to address it.

Since you say that humans are wholly passive in salvation; receiving without acting, like a dead body receives. Becoming alive only when God gives life (presumably eternal life).

And if there is any element of human action, like rejecting the offered salvation or accepting it, then aren't you really a synergist according to your previous statements?

That's why we need grace. Grace doesn't wait for us to offer our yes, grace comes with God's yes to and for us, and struggle though we will, grace acts upon us anyway.

Why then are some saved and not others? Good question.

Lutherans call this the Crux Theologorum, the Theologian's Cross. The most frustrating and unanswerable question of theology. It's a paradox that we can't solve. When we try to answer it, we are usually left with rejecting one part of Scripture or the other. Calvinism is one error in trying to resolve the paradox, by saying Christ died only for the elect; Arminianism is the other error in trying to resolve the paradox, by saying that human beings contribute their share to God's work in salvation. Lutheranism rejects both, and asserts the paradox is a paradox, and it's not our business to resolve it because, this side of eternity, it can't be resolved. Only God in His infinite and Divine wisdom knows how it all works out, and that should be sufficient for us to trust Him.

-CryptoLutheran

Okay.

We do need grace.

Catholics see the grace starting at conception or earlier.

Not along the lines of " By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death." that gets a mention in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

But along the lines of saint Paul's declaration, "it is [God] who gives everything -- including life and breath -- to everyone. ... it is in him that we live, and move, and exist, as indeed some of your own writers have said: We are all his children. "

There is in Paul's declaration a surprising element of a pre-existing relationship between God and humanity.

One that gets scant attention at times.

We are, by nature, God's children. And sin makes us run & hide from God, as did Adam and Eve, "[Adam and Eve] heard the sound of Yahweh God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from Yahweh God among the trees of the garden"

Even in their fallen state they acted with freedom, but their fall made them fearful of their Father.

That is the tragedy of sin. Other tragic elements also exist.

So how did God dress their wound? [puns intended ]

I presume, as you would expect, that they were not yet dead, that their death would take time and would not become irrevocable until their life on Earth ran its course.

Yahweh God made tunics of skins for the man and his wife and clothed them.

The above is a little symbolic I reckon, covering their nudity with animal skins seems like a reference to sacrificial animals that would come into the story later (with Cain & Able then with Noah and then with Abraham and Moses and Israel and finally with Jesus Christ).

There's always grace in their lives as long as they live (on Earth).

There's always freedom as long as they are alive.

Freedom to choose and freedom to refuse.

And there's always mystery in grace.

God reveals it, but he does not always explain every detail.

So the mystery is both in the fact of revealing and in the absence of detailed explanation.

It is not until Jesus comes that detailed explanation arrives.

But it arrives as a person not as scripture.

So, Catholic theology is happy to admit mystery (in the sense of revealed truth that does not contain - in scripture - all the details and hence is a little bit misty (pun intended)).

Freedom is our birth right. It is included in the deal. It is part of our created nature.

Responsibility is predicated on freedom.

If we acted without freedom - by instinct, for example - then we would be blameless. Just as other creatures are blameless when acting without freedom.

Hmmm .. maybe I ought to stop. I am writing way more than I intended.

God bless.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Dead folk, like dead wills, do not DO anything. They no more reject than they accept. They are inert - except for decaying because of the activity of living things that feed on the corpse.

So, how does a dead will reject?

I do not believe that a fallen person has a deceased will.

Do you?

Being dead in our sins, yes, I believe our natural instinct, our inclination, our response to God is to reject Him.

Okay.

We do need grace.

Catholics see the grace starting at conception or earlier.

Not along the lines of " By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death." that gets a mention in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Since I'm not a Calvinist, that doesn't represent my views either. Nobody is "foreordained to everlasting death". Nobody is beyond reach, nobody is outside of God's calling and grace. The Gospel is for everyone. God calls and desires that all be saved.

But along the lines of saint Paul's declaration, "it is [God] who gives everything -- including life and breath -- to everyone. ... it is in him that we live, and move, and exist, as indeed some of your own writers have said: We are all his children. "

There is in Paul's declaration a surprising element of a pre-existing relationship between God and humanity.

One that gets scant attention at times.

We are, by nature, God's children. And sin makes us run & hide from God, as did Adam and Eve, "[Adam and Eve] heard the sound of Yahweh God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from Yahweh God among the trees of the garden"

Even in their fallen state they acted with freedom, but their fall made them fearful of their Father.

That is the tragedy of sin. Other tragic elements also exist.

So how did God dress their wound? [puns intended ]

I presume, as you would expect, that they were not yet dead, that their death would take time and would not become irrevocable until their life on Earth ran its course.

Yahweh God made tunics of skins for the man and his wife and clothed them.

The above is a little symbolic I reckon, covering their nudity with animal skins seems like a reference to sacrificial animals that would come into the story later (with Cain & Able then with Noah and then with Abraham and Moses and Israel and finally with Jesus Christ).

There's always grace in their lives as long as they live (on Earth).

There's always freedom as long as they are alive.

Freedom to choose and freedom to refuse.

And there's always mystery in grace.

God reveals it, but he does not always explain every detail.

So the mystery is both in the fact of revealing and in the absence of detailed explanation.

It is not until Jesus comes that detailed explanation arrives.

But it arrives as a person not as scripture.

So, Catholic theology is happy to admit mystery (in the sense of revealed truth that does not contain - in scripture - all the details and hence is a little bit misty (pun intended)).

Freedom is our birth right. It is included in the deal. It is part of our created nature.

Responsibility is predicated on freedom.

If we acted without freedom - by instinct, for example - then we would be blameless. Just as other creatures are blameless when acting without freedom.

Hmmm .. maybe I ought to stop. I am writing way more than I intended.

God bless.

If by freedom you mean that we aren't automatons, I agree. If by freedom you mean that we are accountable to our own choices, our own actions, then I agree with you with that too. I don't believe in fatalism, the human will is free insofar as it comes to making mundane choices. Though, we still lack the strength and the power to come to God apart from the Holy Spirit who effectually works in us,

"The Third Article.

Of Sanctification.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; one holy Christian Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

What does this mean?--Answer.

I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true." - Luther's Small Catechism, II.3

As the Apostle writes,

"How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!' But they have not all obeyed the Gospel. For Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?' So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." - Romans 10:14-17

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Elder 111]

Please show me scripture that we are to wait for our children to understand. You have none. You say that about baptism not because of scripture but because you've been taught that by men. Do you know when baptising children began and when some began questioning it? I assure you that Martian Luther did not object and that was not listed in his complaints. So the problem with it began after not in the reformation. It's a new concept.

There is no account of children in the bible only grown-ups. Show me a baby or even a child that was baptized.

 

[Albion]

There is no account of children in the bible only grown-ups. Show me a baby or even a child that was baptized.

That's already been covered, Elder. See post 113.

 

[Lion King]

What is the purpose of baptizing a baby?

 

[katherine2001]

To make the child part of the new Covenant--just as male babies were circumcised at 8 days old to make them part of the Old Covenant. Why would God bring children into the Old Covenant but not the New?

Also, the EO start communing children as soon as they are baptized, which is usually around 40 days old. Also, by baptizing babies, they are brought into the New Covenant and are raised and protected by God in the Church.

 

[katherine2001]

There is no account of children in the bible only grown-ups. Show me a baby or even a child that was baptized.

Do you honestly believe that in the households referred to in the New Testament that were baptized that not a single baby or small child was part of that household?