Other protestant thoughts on Baptism

[Flynmonkie]

There it is! Putting man's understanding of just and fair above God. "But babies are innocent, they have no sin!" Scripture disagrees.

Read Psalm 51:5

Read Romans 3

You may call me mean hearted, but I am a realist. Babies are indeed sinful and without faith, perish. No one who disbelieves gets a free pass. This is why Holy Baptism is necessary and salutary. Life is not a game! Do not keep the children from the saving waters of Baptism.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

I am saddend you or anyone else feels this way. It might be the way of man, but it certainly is not the way of God. Thow cold water on a baby, the only thing he/she will do is cry.

 

[ByzantineDixie]

I am saddend you or anyone else feels this way. It might be the way of man, but it certainly is not the way of God. Thow cold water on a baby, the only thing he/she will do is cry.

I usually do not enter in to discussions that go this way because I am not convinced that such discussions at this level are fruitful and actually change one's position on the matter...but I can't having you feeling sad for those of us who believe in infant baptism!!!

The beauty of infant baptism lies in the fact that it is not up to us to comprehend what is done. This is God's work. God brings faith. Baptism conveys faith to the baby. We do not believe faith is limited to those who are old enough and have adequate mental capacities to express that they have faith. Who are we to say that babies or the disabled can not have faith! Who are we to withhold Baptism and thereby withhold faith from Jesus' precious children...interestingly enough those of us who believe in infant baptism actually use the same passage you referenced (Mark 10:14) to support the use of that Baptism!

I surely do not see infant Baptism as the way of man...because we actually see God working in Baptism. What seems like a way of man is when Baptism is only an outward sign where God does no work. Unfortunately...because we come to Baptism with different presuppositions we will talk past each other which is a shame--but it is what it is.

Remembering my Baptism with thanksgiving...in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen

Rose

 

[JVAC]

What denomination doesn't what, believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation? I thought that was the whole purpose of this thread. I have yet to see you even show a majority position on the matter, much less that it's the sole position in the Protestant community.

It depends on what you view to be Protestant. I don't view anabaptists as protestant, I view them as anabaptists. This makes the Protestant opinion much more centralized, for only, Anglicans/Lutherans/Moravians are really protestant (a few others might be petitionable).

I agree that we must follow the commands of Jesus. I also think it is arrogant that those who usually make these types of statements are clearly inferring that they follow the commands of Jesus while those of different beliefs do not. All you've done here is violate the law of contradition. You've have stated that baptism is necessary for salvation but not absolutely necessary. Either it's necessary or it's not. Now, if all you are contending is that we are commanded to be baptized I would agree wholeheartedly. However, contradictory qualifiers like "necessary but not absolutely necessary" do nothing for me except show that you're willing to compromise your position to fit your needs. If something is not "absolutely necessary" for the attainment of salvation then it's not necessary at all. That is not to say that Christ did not command us to be baptized. He did. Our necessity to be baptized is in accordance with His command to be baptized, not because water baptism is a condition for salvation.

I see what you are saying here and I have never been one to limit Christ Jesus, yet I cannot, in good conscience, say that baptism is not necessary. It is necessary, yet there is room for the grace of God, for through God all things are possible. (You are probably pulling out your hair by now, sorry for reiterating.) I don't know what problem people have with fullfilling this comandment, however? Their reasoning fails me. I cannot understand why someone would deny God, His right to claim oneself, what benefit is there to not being baptized??

Instead of mocking the faith and assurance of a fellow Christian you should commend her on her steadfastness in the Lord's promise that the Spirit of God testifies with our spirit that we are children of God and that the Lord will finish the good work He started in us. Encouragement is one thing, i.e., "It's great that the Lord has given you that assurance but that doesn't give you license to ignore His commandment to be baptized," and snide disdain, which is what you've expressed does nothing but show your lack of love for another.

I am not sure the Lord has given her that "assurance". In my own opion, I think it is the Devil, the prince of darkness, who gives that assurance. I think he says, you don't need to be washed into God's name, you don't need to obey His commands. I have faith that I am saved, because I, in baptism, was claimed by God, to be His holy child through Christ Jesus. My faith is assured not by mere water but the promise of God himself.

-James

 

[theseed]

I am not sure the Lord has given her that "assurance". In my own opion, I think it is the Devil, the prince of darkness, who gives that assurance.

I think it is the devil that says we must do something to have our sins forgiven, because it says that the propitation of Christ was insufficient for the remission of sins.

 

[JVAC]

I think it is the devil that says we must do something to have our sins forgiven, because it says that the propitation of Christ was insufficient for the remission of sins

Yet it is not us doing something. No one can baptize themselves, not even the Christ presumed to baptize himself. We merely allow ourselves to be baptized. We give God his right to claim us. Just as the Spirit does not rest with those who do not allow it, so too, baptism. If someone is not of the Spirit they will not produce fruits of the Spirit.

Also, baptism isn't just a one time thing, it is life long. In everything you do make the sign of the cross in memory of your baptism and to whom you belong. Allow your Baptismal promises, and God's Baptismal Grace govern your actions.

-James

 

[theseed]

Here are some good links about the validity of credobaptism, and the invalidity of paedobaptism. Both are long reads, especially the 2nd one. The 2nd one is a booklet put on the internet about one man's struggle with baptism.

A Critical Evaluaiton of Paedobaptism
http://www.founders.org/library/welty.html

A String of Pearls Unstrung
http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/malone_text.html

 

[theseed]

not even the Christ presumed to baptize himself

Yet he saught baptism, something infants cannot do. The Great Commission says that we make disciples first, then baptize.

Just as the Spirit does not rest with those who do not allow it, so too, baptism.

This is acutally Spiritual baptism (Titus 3.5), baptism by water is only a symbol. It is another person that baptizes us with water, and that is a work. So God's election to Salvation is the Spiritual baptism that brings regeneration.

Titus 3
5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

Also, baptism isn't just a one time thing,

Titus 3.5 shows that it is, the Spirit baptizes us once, that is why it is past tense. We recieve the Spirit not because of "rightous things we have done"; which is what water baptism is, a good work in obediance to our Lord's command.

I know we could argue this perpetually, so I posted the links is post #40; this 2nd one is really good. I've only read part of it because its so long.


One in Christ,

 

[JVAC]

Yet he saught baptism, something infants cannot do. The Great Commission says that we make disciples first, then baptize.

Did he seek circumcision? If he was not circumcized then God's promise wouldn't apply to him. So too with baptism.


On your next point, our two churches are in disagreement, we think that spirit baptism and water baptism are one in the same.


Baptism is a one time thing but not "being baptized".

-James

 

[theseed]

Did he seek circumcision? If he was not circumcized then God's promise wouldn't apply to him. So too with baptism.

All your arguments are refuted in the links I posted.

On your next point, our two churches are in disagreement, we think that spirit baptism and water baptism are one in the same

I know. You limit God to baptism, and say his election only works through baptism.

Baptism is a one time thing but not "being baptized".

That's not what Titus 3.5 says, regeneration comes once and for all, so does propitation. That's why Christ said "It is finished" before he died.

Explain what you mean by "being batpized" and provide a verse or two.

 

[Reformationist]

You may call me mean hearted, but I am a realist.

I don't think you're mean hearted. I don't think you're a realist either. I just think your idea that water baptism is a prerequesite for salvation is man centered and denies the efficacy of Christ's death. You do nothing more than claim for yourself some of the glory that is God's alone.

This is why Holy Baptism is necessary and salutary. Life is not a game! Do not keep the children from the saving waters of Baptism.

Was this really Luther's position on baptism? I understand that he embraced the sacramental nature of baptism but did he really purport that the waters of batism are the means of our salvation?

 

[theseed]

Random comment, but in the active users box at the top of the thread, Both Reformationist and Flynmonkie had a "+" beside thier name. What does this mean?

I'm guessing it means their is a guest, and there were 2 guests

 

[Reformationist]

It depends on what you view to be Protestant. I don't view anabaptists as protestant, I view them as anabaptists. This makes the Protestant opinion much more centralized, for only, Anglicans/Lutherans/Moravians are really protestant (a few others might be petitionable).

You lost me. Let me separate out what I got from that:

"Only Anglicans, Lutherans, and Moravians are really Protestant." Is that what you were implying? If so, where in the world did you get that belief? How do you define "Protestant?"

I see what you are saying here and I have never been one to limit Christ Jesus, yet I cannot, in good conscience, say that baptism is not necessary.

I didn't say that. I said it wasn't necessary for salvation. Is that what you meant?

I don't know what problem people have with fullfilling this comandment, however? Their reasoning fails me.

I don't know why anyone would have a problem being baptized either, though I imagine that many Christians' feel that they want it to happen in a church that means something to them because the baptism means so much to them.

I cannot understand why someone would deny God, His right to claim oneself, what benefit is there to not being baptized??

JVAC, I don't think anyone refrains from getting baptized because of the benefits of not being baptized. I think, for most people, they've just never got around to doing it.

I think he says, you don't need to be washed into God's name, you don't need to obey His commands.

She didn't say she didn't need to obey His commands. She said she knows she's saved because she recognizes the leading of the Spirit of God. If you doubt that that leading is from God that is your perrogative but that doesn't mean it's NOT the leading of God. Again, I'm not aware that that particular poster said she was against being baptized.

I have faith that I am saved, because I, in baptism, was claimed by God, to be His holy child through Christ Jesus. My faith is assured not by mere water but the promise of God himself.

Well, I'd have to say that it sounds to me like you put your faith in the efficacy of the ritual rather than in the efficacy of the Savior's death. Again, I submit to the fact that we should be baptized. I just differ in that I believe we are baptized to show the world our union with Christ, just as the Jews showed their allegience to God and separateness from the pagan world by being circumcized. Their circumcision didn't make them separate. It showed that they were separate. Baptism doesn't separate us. It's shows that we are separate.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Yet it is not us doing something.

Does someone come to your church and baptize people against their will? If not then you do do something, you consent. Acknowledging your consent is one thing but if you do so you must acknowledge WHY you consent when another person has not.

We give God his right to claim us.

JVAC, I must tell you that this is one of the most man centered things a Christian can ever say. You don't give God any rights. He has the right to do anything with His creation that He pleases, so long as it is in accordance with His nature. You don't establish God's authority by being baptized. You recognize God's authority by being baptized.

In everything you do make the sign of the cross in memory of your baptism and to whom you belong.

Gotta tell you JVAC, you're sounding awfully RC here.

God bless

 

[JVAC]

You lost me. Let me separate out what I got from that:

"Only Anglicans, Lutherans, and Moravians are really Protestant." Is that what you were implying? If so, where in the world did you get that belief? How do you define "Protestant?"

The more limited deffinition goes back to the Diet of Speyer (1529). However, I prefer to think of all the churches who aren't re-baptizers as protestants and all the others as anabpatists. Get it?

I didn't say that. I said it wasn't necessary for salvation. Is that what you meant?

No, I meant I can see your reasoning, then I went talking about something else, I jump around sometimes a little bit of ADD or something of that nature.

I don't know why anyone would have a problem being baptized either, though I imagine that many Christians' feel that they want it to happen in a church that means something to them because the baptism means so much to them.

Baptism isn't about that though, it is about God claiming you.

JVAC, I don't think anyone refrains from getting baptized because of the benefits of not being baptized. I think, for most people, they've just never got around to doing it.

Good, I think the same. It just aids another point of mine, it is illogical not to be baptized.

She didn't say she didn't need to obey His commands. She said she knows she's saved because she recognizes the leading of the Spirit of God. If you doubt that that leading is from God that is your perrogative but that doesn't mean it's NOT the leading of God. Again, I'm not aware that that particular poster said she was against being baptized.

The pronoun he, was referring to Satan.

Well, I'd have to say that it sounds to me like you put your faith in the efficacy of the ritual rather than in the efficacy of the Savior's death. Again, I submit to the fact that we should be baptized. I just differ in that I believe we are baptized to show the world our union with Christ, just as the Jews showed their allegience to God and separateness from the pagan world by being circumcized. Their circumcision didn't make them separate. It showed that they were separate. Baptism doesn't separate us. It's shows that we are separate.

Baptism is not a ritual, it is a means of Grace. Baptism contains the promise of Almighty God. Relying on God's Baptismal Promise does not take away from Christ, No it adds to him, for one must be baptized into His name.

-James

 

[JVAC]

Does someone come to your church and baptize people against their will? If not then you do do something, you consent. Acknowledging your consent is one thing but if you do so you must acknowledge WHY you consent when another person has not.

All that is needed is someone to ask, and then it can and will be done. All that a person need do is allow it to happen, there is no work, a decission yeah, but no work.

JVAC, I must tell you that this is one of the most man centered things a Christian can ever say. You don't give God any rights. He has the right to do anything with His creation that He pleases, so long as it is in accordance with His nature. You don't establish God's authority by being baptized. You recognize God's authority by being baptized.

If we do not get baptized, then don't we deny Him His right? I think your hang up, is my language and not so much as what I am saying. When I say deny the right I am talking about not letting Him excersize it. (Of course you are calvinist, and I am not, so this won't get too fruitful).

Gotta tell you JVAC, you're sounding awfully RC here.

I would say it is very catholic Have you read Luther's Small Catechism. Lutherans are admonished to cross themselves often.

 

[Flynmonkie]

I usually do not enter in to discussions that go this way because I am not convinced that such discussions at this level are fruitful and actually change one's position on the matter...but I can't having you feeling sad for those of us who believe in infant baptism!!!

Rose

Rose - I personally do not believe that water saves anyone. It saddens me yes to see that people do not trust Gods word enough to KNOW. Justification is immediate. Simple as that. I think Baptisim is something you do when you have professed yourself a sinner, and given yourself to God. However, if you die without doing this, it will not affect your salvation. Baptisim is not where I decided to jump in.

Its when self professing "Christians" decide others salvation that bothers me. The "christians" that seem to think it is Christ-Like to go around preaching that God will send their dead Babies to Hell. What is this some sort of scare tactic?....I don't get it? These people are no different then any other extremeist out there. It is utter nonsense. My child whom is 6 mos old right now...had a twin. Lost during childbirth, in the womb. You can rest assured he is in Heaven waiting for me. I know God has assured me of this in many ways but here are a few more.....Do you not realize how many times Child or Children or Sons and Daughters are mentioned in the Bible?? That is all He talks about. His Love for His children. For all whom seek him.
Luke 23:34
34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lotshttp://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php#_ftn1

Jesus's very last words. *Gasp* Jesus wanted God to forgive ignorant willfully sinful man????? Now how about them babies?? Nope I guess this would not apply to those whom cannot speak or hear or reason. Just those willfully sinful ones HUH?

Here is more on How God seperated and distinguished childish acts from acts of the accountable.

An element in spiritual growth ;
1 Peter 2
2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:



Entrance to Heaven as a Childlikeness:
Mark 10
15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

A model to be followed;
1 Corinthians 14
20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
Think some of this over.......
Now, as far as your statement.......

Who are we to say that babies or the disabled can not have faith! Who are we to withhold Baptism and thereby withhold faith from Jesus' precious children...
Rose

Now it sounds like your getting Baptisim confused with salvation....To top it off, it sounds as if you are judging their hearts for them...Your right my position will never change. My position is that on nearly everything....God is leading different people in different ways.....who am I to judge....

 

[Reformationist]

The more limited deffinition goes back to the Diet of Speyer (1529). However, I prefer to think of all the churches who aren't re-baptizers as protestants and all the others as anabpatists. Get it?

I get that that's your definition of a Protestant but not the definition of Protestant.

Baptism isn't about that though, it is about God claiming you.

As I've said, I disagree. I believe that baptism is our public recognition of being set apart. I do not believe it is the means God uses to set us apart.

It just aids another point of mine, it is illogical not to be baptized.

I don't think it's an issue of logic at all.

The pronoun he, was referring to Satan.

I know who you were referring to by "he." You were commenting on the fact that I stated it was a good thing that that particular poster had assurance of her salvation. You said that assurance was from the Devil for the purpose of misleading someone into thinking they don't need to be baptized. I'll say it again because it seems to have gone over your head. Regardless of whether the Devil prompts anyone to feel they needn't be baptized, that particular poster said nothing of not needing to obey God's commands. All she said was that she knows she's saved because she recognizes the leading of the Spirit of God. As I said, if you decided that you feel that leading is not from the Sprit of God but rather the Devil that is your perrogative but your opinion doesn't make it fact. Unlike you, many, many Protestants don't feel that salvation is attained by the means of a water baptism, nor do we feel that God set it up that way. As for it being "necessary," well, that needs to be qualified. I believe a water baptism is necessary if one wishes to be obedient to God by publically proclaiming fealty to Him. As for it being the means of God's deliverance of salvitic grace, well, if that's what your church teaches then I'd say that you do violence to the Bible's account of the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice in catalyzing the dispensation of God's covenant grace of salvation. Of course, feeling that way is my perrogative, though I do so with the desire to refrain from impugning God's grace.

Baptism is not a ritual, it is a means of Grace.

See, now this is the same problem I have with the Catholics on this issue. I would say that faith is the means of God's grace and that this belief holds intact the sovereign deliverance of God because He providentially supplies us with something foreign to our fallen nature, in particular, that vehicle by which He delivers us, faith.

Romans 4:4 speaks directly to this issue. Abraham was selected long before the OT version of baptism, i.e., circumcision. Had God said, "Abram, be circumcised and then you'll be chosen by Me" that would have been one thing. In fact, Romans 4:4 clearly intimates that had God's grace been the result of Abraham's work, i.e., circumcision, then it would cease to be grace and become a debt for which God was obligated to account. Your theory of baptism does just that. It obligates God to convey grace to you because you followed the rules. Sorry JVAC, but that's legalism and the Law won't do anything BUT convict you. When you make yourself a debtor to one point of the Law, like baptism, you make yourself a debtor to the entire Law. Look at Ephesians 5:

Galatians 5:1-6
Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

Clearly Paul wasn't arguing against circumcision. He was merely saying that if you attempt to be justified by the law you have put yourself back under the yoke of keeping the whole law. It's not that circumcision, or in our case baptism, is unnecessary. It's just that when you look to that act as the means that avails our justification you fall from grace and deny the efficacy of faith working through love.

Baptism contains the promise of Almighty God.

I disagree. Christ contains the promise of Almighty God and His graciousness of indwelling us is His testament to us that He has adopted us and made us co-heirs with Christ.

Relying on God's Baptismal Promise does not take away from Christ, No it adds to him, for one must be baptized into His name.

It adds to Him? How do you add to God? Our obedience to His command to be baptized is the outward, visible manifestation of our profession of unity with the God of the Bible. It does not justify, sanctify, or save us.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

All that is needed is someone to ask, and then it can and will be done. All that a person need do is allow it to happen, there is no work, a decission yeah, but no work.

Is that how salvation works too? All we need to do is ask?

If we do not get baptized, then don't we deny Him His right?

Of course not. God is not thwarted from claiming His own because they were disobedient and chose not to be baptized.

I think your hang up, is my language and not so much as what I am saying. When I say deny the right I am talking about not letting Him excersize it. (Of course you are calvinist, and I am not, so this won't get too fruitful).

Sorry but saying that you don't "let Him exercise His divine rights" is synonymous with saying you deny Him His right.

I would say it is very catholic Have you read Luther's Small Catechism. Lutherans are admonished to cross themselves often.

Haven't read it. Aside from reminding you of your union with the Godhead what is it supposed to accomplish?

God bless

 

[ChiRho]

I usually do not enter in to discussions that go this way because I am not convinced that such discussions at this level are fruitful and actually change one's position on the matter...but I can't having you feeling sad for those of us who believe in infant baptism!!!

The beauty of infant baptism lies in the fact that it is not up to us to comprehend what is done. This is God's work. God brings faith. Baptism conveys faith to the baby. We do not believe faith is limited to those who are old enough and have adequate mental capacities to express that they have faith. Who are we to say that babies or the disabled can not have faith! Who are we to withhold Baptism and thereby withhold faith from Jesus' precious children...interestingly enough those of us who believe in infant baptism actually use the same passage you referenced (Mark 10:14) to support the use of that Baptism!

I surely do not see infant Baptism as the way of man...because we actually see God working in Baptism. What seems like a way of man is when Baptism is only an outward sign where God does no work. Unfortunately...because we come to Baptism with different presuppositions we will talk past each other which is a shame--but it is what it is.

Remembering my Baptism with thanksgiving...in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen

Rose

Rose gets Baptism like few others do! Praise be to Christ!

ChiRho

 

[ChiRho]

Here is the LCMS position, with which I am in complete assent. Instead of spending tedious hours trying to accurately state my position again and again and again and again (and at times, completely failing to do so!), I, by way of our LCMS, offer up a clear understanding conveying the very position I hold in regards to Faith and Baptism. For anyone seeking further clarity, feel free to search our Synod's website. The FAQ section is extremely helpful. (www.lcms.org)

Faith and Baptism
Q. Here is an excerpt from your web site: Baptism is "enough" for salvation in that it contains all the blessings of salvation that God himself has attached to it; these blessings are received, however, only by those who cling in faith--which itself is a gift of God!--to the words and promises attached to baptism. Shouldn't it be the other way around--FAITH is "enough" for salvation and your blessings come from your personal faith and trust in the Lord. Your whole life should demonstrate your faith. Baptism is an act of obedience to God and shouldn't be tied to salvation in such a manner that it seems that we would earn salvation by baptism. Why does the Lutheran Faith teach baptism=salvation and neglect the fact that salvation comes from faith by grace which is manifested in our actions?

A. We appreciate your comments and are grateful for the opportunity to comment on the Lutheran understanding of what the Scriptures teach concerning Baptism--a position sometimes not well understood.

First of all, central to everything that Lutherans teach is the good news that we are, in the words of St. Paul, saved "by grace...through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast" (Eph. 2:8-9). The central principle of the Lutheran Reformation is that we are saved "by grace alone, through faith alone, for the sake of Christ alone. Faith in Christ by which we are saved is conveyed to us through the Gospel, as again Paul teaches, "faith comes from hearing the message, and message is heard through the word of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). That is to say, the Gospel is the vehicle or means through which God by His Spirit works faith (Rom. 1:16-17). Faith does not come, as we might say today, "out of thin air." God uses His divinely appointed means to impart to us the forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation.

We also believe on the basis of what the Scriptures say concerning baptism throughout the New Testament that it is a means through which God conveys His saving grace. Lutheran theologians therefore often speak of baptism as "visible Gospel." God (not human beings) has instituted baptism (Matt. 28:18-20). He has attached His powerful Gospel to the visible element of water and through this, His work, He unites us with Christ and imparts to us His saving blessings. That Baptism is God's means of imparting His grace is especially clear in Romans 6. St. Paul writes, "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were bured there with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father we too might walk in newness of life." The Greek phrase used here, "by baptism," is composed of the preposition dia with the genitive case tou baptismatos. Beyond dispute, grammatically Paul is speaking about Baptism as the instrument through which God incorporates people into Christ and His saving work. It is for this reason that Baptism, in Lutheran theology, is regarded as such a precious treasure.

To be sure, faith alone is the instrument by which we receive the salvation won by Christ. But the Gospel and sacraments (Baptism and the Lord's Supper) are God's instruments through which He engenders saving faith in us--indeed, a miracle. Thus, there is no contradiction between saying faith alone saves, but that this faith comes to us through means or vehicles. We rejoice, therefore, in the words of the apostle who wrote, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God...." (Eph. 2:8-9), a precious truth made known to us, as St. Paul further says, "through the Gospel"(Eph. 3:6).

If one holds that baptism is a good work of obedience done by humans, I can understand how one might think that Lutherans teach that faith alone in Christ is not enough. But this is to fundamentally misunderstand, in our view, how the Scriptures everywhere describe Baptism, that is, as a divine, not a human, work. We reject any implication that baptism is a human work, one that we do in order to earn salvation. On the contrary, we hold that the Scriptures teach that baptism is God's precious gift through which He works to impart His saving grace revealed to us through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who alone is our Savior. In a word, Baptism is a marvelous testimony to the unmerited grace of God.

Here is a brief history of infant Holy Baptism in the Church.

Infant Baptism History

Q. You say that infant baptism is ONE way of salvation. Since this practice was unknown in the New Testament or even the early Catholic church, it is speculative. The Bible says that repentance is a a prerequisite for faith. I repented at five, so it can be early, but not in someone's arms.

A. Infants are included in "all nations" who are to be baptized (Matt. 28:19). Certainly they were included in Peter's Pentecost exhortation in Acts 2:38, 39: "Repent and be baptized everyone one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins....The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off -- for all whom the Lord our God will call."

Whole households, everyone in the family, were baptized in the beginning of New Testament times, which in all probability included infants (Acts 16:15 and 33). [The "household" formula used here by Luke has Old Testament precedent, with special reference also to small children, as for example in 1 Sam. 22:16, 19; see Joachim Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, 22-23.] In Romans 6, the Holy Spirit tells us in the Word that in baptism we have been united with Jesus' death and resurrection -- regenerated, dying to sin and rising to new life. That happens to infants when baptized (Gal. 3:27). "For as many of you who have been baptized have put on Christ." Baptism through the Word creates the faith necessary to receive salvation for infants. Infants can have faith. In Mark 10:14 Jesus said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." The Greek word in this text is "paidia" which means babes in arms. Infants can belong to the kingdom of God. "From the lips of children and infants, You have ordained praise...." Psalm 8:2. "Yet You brought me out of the womb, You made me trust in You even at my mother's breast" Psalm 22:9.


From the beginning of New Testament Christianity at Pentecost to our time, unbroken and uninterrupted, the Church has baptized babies. Polycarp (69-155 AD), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. Justin Martyr (100-166 AD) of the next generation, about the year 150 AD, states in his Dialog with Trypho The Jew that baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament." Irenaeus (130-200 AD) writes in Against Heresies II 22:4 that Jesus came to save all through means of Himself -- all, I say, who through Him are born again to God -- infants and children, boys and youth, and old men."

Similar expressions are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185-254 AD) and Cyprian (215-258 AD), and at the Council of Carthage in 254 where the 66 bishops stated: "We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God....especially infants....those newly born." Origen wrote in his Commentary on Romans 5:9: "For this also it was that the Church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants." Origen also wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: "Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins." Cyprian's reply to a bishop who wrote to him regarding the baptism of infants stated: "Should we wait until the 8th day as did the Jews in the circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born."

Augustine (354-430 AD) wrote in De Genesi Ad Literam, 10:39 declared, "The custom of our mother Church in baptizing infants must not be counted needless, nor believed to be other than a tradition of the Apostles." Augustine further states: "...the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they cannot possibly be vivified in Christ. In 517 AD, 10 rules of discipline were framed for the Church in Spain. The fifth rule states that "...in case infants were ill...if they were offered, to baptize them, even though it were the day that they were born...such was to be done." ("The History of Baptism" by Robert Robinson, London, Thomas Knott, 1790, p.269)

This pattern of baptizing infants remained in Christianity through the Dark and Middle Ages until modern times. In the 1500 years from the time of Christ to the Protestant Reformation, the only bonafide opponent to infant baptism was the heretic Tertullian (160-215 AD) who de facto denied original sin. Then in the 1520s the Christian Church experienced opposition specifically to infant baptism under the influence of Thomas Muenzer and other fanatics who opposed both civil and religious authority, original sin and human concupiscence. Thomas' opposition was then embraced by a considerable number of Swiss, German and Dutch Anabaptists. This brought about strong warning and renunciation by the Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Reformed alike. It was considered a shameless affront to what had been practiced in each generation since Christ's command in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20) to baptize all nations irrespective of age. Historical excerpts are from "Infant Baptism in Early Church History," by Dr. Dennis Kastens in Issues Etc. Journal, Spring 1997, Vol. 2, No. 3.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho