Infant baptism is not mentioned in the Bible neither is anyone saved by baptism only faith alone saves so is infant baptism unbiblical?
Last edited:
Infant baptism is unbiblical because infants committed No sins. Jesus Christ said the Kingdom of God belongs to chilldren because Heaven is Not for sinners. Baptism is for forgiveness of sinsInfant baptism is not mentioned in the Bible neither is anyone saved by baptism only faith alone saves so is infant baptism unbiblical?
Infant baptism is unbiblical because infants committed No sins. Jesus Christ said the Kingdom of God belongs to chilldren because Heaven is Not for sinners. Baptism is for forgiveness of sins
May God Bless You
Infant baptism is not mentioned in the Bible neither is anyone saved by baptism only faith alone saves so is infant baptism unbiblical?
This is a Lutheran forum, and that is not a Lutheran position.
I’m lutheran but i don’t always listen to the lutheran position because it might very often be against the bible.
Mr Jb when infant baptism is not mentioned in The Bible the Church does not always have right. Our founder Martin Luther said that all jews that would not accept Christ must be killed and thats unbiblical. When Some of Luthers teachings are unbiblical that Means Much of our church is unbiblical.
This is a Lutheran forum, and they practice infant baptism.Infant baptism is unbiblical because infants committed No sins. Jesus Christ said the Kingdom of God belongs to chilldren because Heaven is Not for sinners. Baptism is for forgiveness of sins
May God Bless You
Mr Jb when infant baptism is not mentioned in The Bible the Church does not always have right. Our founder Martin Luther said that all jews that would not accept Christ must be killed and thats unbiblical. When Some of Luthers teachings are unbiblical that Means Much of our church is unbiblical.
As one trying to understand the concept, and one that was baptized as an infant, I struggle some.
We know, and all Christians agree, baptizing understanding adults is OK - we have direct example of it in scripture.
The Bible is silent on saying do or don't baptize babies. Early debates between Origen and Tertullian seem to show that it really was not a set thing from the Apostles - if someone has early church evidence otherwise I'd be very interested.
One practice makes no sense. If baptism is the entering into the church - delaying communion for children makes no sense. Either they are members or not, and members share the Lord's Supper. But this practice sort of has created semi-members, until an age of reason???
Question. You quoted Origen and the early church Apostles, tradition, but aren’t Lutherans not supposed to rely on Apostolic tradition?Yeah, perhaps it can be helpful to consider it in these terms:
In the New Testament age, it was a time of mass conversion, and the Scriptures say that this included entire households. (cf. Acts 11:13-14, Acts 16:30-34). And if we consider the norm for children in both the OT and NT Church, it is not that they should wait to accept God, but rather, that they should be brought up in the faith.
So, while Jesus' words "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" are not said in the context of Baptism directly, it's quite appropriate to apply them to Holy Baptism. For, our Lord also says: "Amen, men, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." And in Acts we find this kingdom connected with Baptism: "But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women."
To my knowledge and as I understand it, Baptism of infants in the early Church era was non-contentious, which explains why it wasn't debated. It only became questioned later, but according to Origen, he says: "The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit." So he rightly connects this to our Lord's words in John 3, quoted above.
I think the earliest allusion to Baptism of children that I know of is what Justin Martyr wrote: "Many, both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure ..."
In short, there's no Biblical example or reason why we should delay Baptism to a certain age. The natural reading and church history are in the favour of that Baptism is for all.
Now, what about the Eucharist? Must children wait to receive the sacrament? Well, children who are incapable of consuming the elements aside, it's my understanding that there's no reason to hinder youth from coming to the Lord's table. But even so, that doesn't mean that babies are less Christian. It just means that those who are physically able and prepared for receiving the Eucharist may have their troubled consciences consoled by the great Gospel promise of our Lord. But we can take comfort in knowing that this same promise is also given to us in Baptism and in God's Word. So my point here is to emphasise that we don't want to draw a hard distinction between the Gospel preached, or heard or read through God's Word, and Baptism, and the Eucharist, for it is all the same Gospel promise. Only one is heard (or read), and the others are received in tangible form.
God bless!
Question. You quoted Origen and the early church Apostles, tradition, but aren’t Lutherans not supposed to rely on Apostolic tradition?
Ok thanks!Lutherans value tradition, but tradition must be governed by God's Word. Our Roman Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and to a lesser degree, Anglican friends, however, believe in the doctrine of Holy Tradition, which is to say that tradition and Scripture are of equal authority. They are not. For first of all, there are many strands of tradition, and secondly, it's not clear what parts of tradition are supposed to be from God and what is supposed to be from man. The Bible, on the other hand, is clear, for it is entirely God's Word.
So, we argue on the basis of Scripture alone, but we can also show examples from Church history if it's useful.
Lutherans value tradition, but tradition must be governed by God's Word. Our Roman Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and to a lesser degree, Anglican friends, however, believe in the doctrine of Holy Tradition, which is to say that tradition and Scripture are of equal authority. They are not. For first of all, there are many strands of tradition, and secondly, it's not clear what parts of tradition are supposed to be from God and what is supposed to be from man. The Bible, on the other hand, is clear, for it is entirely God's Word.
So, we argue on the basis of Scripture alone, but we can also show examples from Church history if it's useful.