Yes, children were present in household baptisms. Biblical evidence.

[ViaCrucis]

The only evidence of any faith on her part was the belief that God would hold her accountable if her child died and went to hell before being baptized.

Which isn't faith. I'm not talking about her current faith, as she lapsed, I'm talking about the faith she was given when she first became a Christian in her baptism. And the need to return to that faith.

You might wish to think that she had faith because her parent(s) paid a fee and had a Catholic priest baptize her. If so, then there is absolutely no difference between baptized Christians and non-baptized pagans. Her husband gave just as much evidence of Christian faith as she did even though his parent(s) did not find any reason to have him baptized.

If she was baptized then I know she had faith because God's word does not return to Him void, but accomplishes what He sets it out to accomplish (Isaiah 55:11). Our God isn't a liar. If we can't trust God when He says He's going to do something then we're all in a whole heap of trouble.

Why did her parents pay a priest to baptize her? I've never heard of that before. Nevertheless, if the baptism was valid, and there's no reason to think it wasn't, then it's simple: the word of God is true and the Holy Spirit was there and she became a child of God, born again. That her parents failed to keep their baptismal commitment and the faith she was given did not blossom into active Christian discipleship doesn't change the fact that God still did what He did. God's word doesn't fail just because we do.

So we're back to what I already said. This is a pastoral matter that needs to be discussed, that she be reconciled back to Jesus, return to faith, and participate in the Christian life.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bbbbbbb]

Why would you think I'm excluding the Satanist from hearing the Gospel?

-CryptoLutheran

You would, however, deny him the benefit of baptism until he expresses a desire for it, would you not?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Which isn't faith. I'm not talking about her current faith, as she lapsed, I'm talking about the faith she was given when she first became a Christian in her baptism. And the need to return to that faith.

If she was baptized then I know she had faith because God's word does not return to Him void, but accomplishes what He sets it out to accomplish (Isaiah 55:11). Our God isn't a liar. If we can't trust God when He says He's going to do something then we're all in a whole heap of trouble.

Why did her parents pay a priest to baptize her? I've never heard of that before. Nevertheless, if the baptism was valid, and there's no reason to think it wasn't, then it's simple: the word of God is true and the Holy Spirit was there and she became a child of God, born again. That her parents failed to keep their baptismal commitment and the faith she was given did not blossom into active Christian discipleship doesn't change the fact that God still did what He did. God's word doesn't fail just because we do.

So we're back to what I already said. This is a pastoral matter that needs to be discussed, that she be reconciled back to Jesus, return to faith, and participate in the Christian life.

-CryptoLutheran

You might know that she had faith, but she sure didn't know. Don't you think that the recipient of faith would actually think they had faith and, moreover, could articulate it in some form or another? Obviously you reject her articulation of her faith, such as it was.

What would a pastor do if, after assuring her of her salvation through her baptism, she told him that she wanted him to baptize her child to prevent the child from going to hell?

 

[Derf]

Why would you think I'm excluding the Satanist from hearing the Gospel?

-CryptoLutheran

I'm just wondering why you exclude him from forced baptism and discipleship.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You would, however, deny him the benefit of baptism until he expresses a desire for it, would you not?

We don't deny anyone the benefit of baptism, but until God brings him to the baptismal font there's nothing we can do.

I'm just wondering why you exclude him from forced baptism and discipleship.

We don't force baptism and discipleship on anyone. Baptizing our children is not forcing anything, it's how God brings infants into His household.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

You might know that she had faith, but she sure didn't know. Don't you think that the recipient of faith would actually think they had faith and, moreover, could articulate it in some form or another? Obviously you reject her articulation of her faith, such as it was.

Without remaining at the receiving end of God's grace in Word and Sacrament then like the Parable of the Sower, the birds of the air or thorns and thistles pluck or choke out the word and the faith it produces.

What would a pastor do if, after assuring her of her salvation through her baptism, she told him that she wanted him to baptize her child to prevent the child from going to hell?

The assurance of her salvation is found in Christ and Christ alone, so like I said multiple times already, she needs to be restored to faith; because it is by faith alone that she is justified. Without that faith there is no justification.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[prodromos]

If there is no repentance in those who are baptised against their will (infants have not yet developed a will of their own, nor do they have anything to repent of) then they will end up in a worse state than if they had not been baptised.

“When the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he passes through waterless places seeking rest, but he finds none. Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. Then he goes and brings with him seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. So shall it be also with this evil generation.”​

 

[Derf]

We don't deny anyone the benefit of baptism, but until God brings him to the baptismal font there's nothing we can do.



We don't force baptism and discipleship on anyone. Baptizing our children is not forcing anything, it's how God brings infants into His household.

-CryptoLutheran

So they aren't really the children of God--more like the grandchildren of God?

But of course it's forcing...they just have no way to resist or to express their displeasure in the coercion.

If you're comparing it to circumcision, that was forced, too. The question you need to ask yourself is whether forcing is morally and spiritually acceptable for a fellow heir of the King. And then you need to ask whether it means anything if the infant might eventually leave the church and his parents' faith. If so, then it goes back to that conversation about baptismal regeneration we were having. Are these infants really regenerated by being baptized without their consent?

 

[Derf]

If there is no repentance in those who are baptised against their will (infants have not yet developed a will of their own, nor do they have anything to repent of) then they will end up in a worse state than if they had not been baptised.

“When the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he passes through waterless places seeking rest, but he finds none. Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. Then he goes and brings with him seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. So shall it be also with this evil generation.”​

Good post! I almost disagreed with your application until I read the last sentence in the passage.

 

[bbbbbbb]

We don't deny anyone the benefit of baptism, but until God brings him to the baptismal font there's nothing we can do.

We don't force baptism and discipleship on anyone. Baptizing our children is not forcing anything, it's how God brings infants into His household.

-CryptoLutheran

So, if a syncretist comes to your church and asks for baptism you will not deny him?

This is not a rhetorical question. I once met a lady who was a syncretist and was proud of the fact that she had been baptized in six different churches.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

So, if a syncretist comes to your church and asks for baptism you will not deny him?

This is not a rhetorical question. I once met a lady who was a syncretist and was proud of the fact that she had been baptized in six different churches.

Six times? Geez, the most I have heard of is three times.

I would deny a seventh on the basis of Eph. 4 "one Lord, one faith ONE baptism." There are plenty of credobaptist churches which a syncretist can go to get an eighth or ninth baptism. I would refer syncretist to them.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So they aren't really the children of God--more like the grandchildren of God?

"But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." - Galatians 3:25-27

But of course it's forcing...they just have no way to resist or to express their displeasure in the coercion

Listen, if you want to view it as forcing. Then have at it. But I simply don't view God's love and grace as force. God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, not forced His only-begotten Son on the world. But if you want to view God's grace and love as force, then by all means, don't let me dissuade you of this. But it does sadden me that so many Christians today are so antagonistic against the Gospel.

If you're comparing it to circumcision, that was forced, too. The question you need to ask yourself is whether forcing is morally and spiritually acceptable for a fellow heir of the King.

See above. I'm not going to try and dissuade you.

And then you need to ask whether it means anything if the infant might eventually leave the church and his parents' faith. If so, then it goes back to that conversation about baptismal regeneration we were having. Are these infants really regenerated by being baptized without their consent?

"I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in Me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned." - John 15:5-6

The one who lapses and falls into apostasy is not abiding in Christ. And without Christ there is no salvation. This is not the fault of God's grace, as though God's word failed. Instead, see the Parable of the Sower,

"And He told them many things in parables, saying: 'A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them. Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they did not have much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had no depth of soil, but when the sun rose they were scorched. And since they had no root, they withered away. Other seeds fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them. Other seeds fell on good soil and produced grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. He who has ears, let him hear.'" - Matthew 13:1-9

"'Hear then the parable of the sower: When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path. As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.'" - Matthew 13:18-23

Don't blame the Sower or the seed, they are perfect. The word of God is perfect, and it does what He sets it out to do (Isaiah 55:11). But, and this is tragic but true, not everyone who hears will believe, not everyone who initially has faith will remain in faith. Sometimes, very tragically, Christians fall away. That's why we are always to call one another back, to preach repentance, and even more importantly to continually preach the Gospel. For we must abide in Christ, remain in Christ. To stay here and kneel and abide at His cross. Come before the cross and remain here, His blood covers you and washes you. There is no where else to go, everything else is death. Christ alone has life, and life abundantly. He is the Vine, the Source, the Foundation, the solid Bedrock and Well of living water, His words are life, His body and blood is life, He is life.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

So, if a syncretist comes to your church and asks for baptism you will not deny him?

This is not a rhetorical question. I once met a lady who was a syncretist and was proud of the fact that she had been baptized in six different churches.

Once baptized, always baptized. There is only one baptism, and God wasn't joking.

If a syncretist came to my church who had been baptized six times and asked to be baptized a seventh time they wouldn't be allowed--because the only baptism that counts was the first. One doesn't get born again again. That's just not how it works. Everything else was a mockery of Baptism. But I would welcome a non-believer to come and bear witness to God's grace and works, our Lord saying, "Come and see". That they might hear the word faithfully preached, and bear witness to the grace and power of God in Word and Sacrament.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bbbbbbb]

Six times? Geez, the most I have heard of is three times.

I would deny a seventh on the basis of Eph. 4 "one Lord, one faith ONE baptism." There are plenty of credobaptist churches which a syncretist can go to get an eighth or ninth baptism. I would refer syncretist to them.

Well, I suppose the advantage to syncretism is covering all the possible bases and if baptism is one, then getting baptized in as many churches as possible is probably a good idea. It probably isn't much different than the Mormons who spend much of their lives inside the Mormon temples being baptized on behalf of dead folks.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Once baptized, always baptized. There is only one baptism, and God wasn't joking.

If a syncretist came to my church who had been baptized six times and asked to be baptized a seventh time they wouldn't be allowed--because the only baptism that counts was the first. One doesn't get born again again. That's just not how it works. Everything else was a mockery of Baptism. But I would welcome a non-believer to come and bear witness to God's grace and works, our Lord saying, "Come and see". That they might hear the word faithfully preached, and bear witness to the grace and power of God in Word and Sacrament.

-CryptoLutheran

I doubt that lady informed the various churches that she had been previously baptized. However, if she had been baptized in, say, the Mormon church would you allow her to be baptized in your church? The Mormons assuredly believe their baptism is the one and only baptism needed.

That aside, if a syncretist, such as one frequently encounters in China and other Asian countries, who maintains an altar to ancestors in their home with a statue of the Buddha along with various other religious statues, including a crucifix and a statue of Mary and various other saints, were to ask for baptism in your church would you welcome them?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Well, I suppose the advantage to syncretism is covering all the possible bases and if baptism is one, then getting baptized in as many churches as possible is probably a good idea. It probably isn't much different than the Mormons who spend much of their lives inside the Mormon temples being baptized on behalf of dead folks.

Such a casual understanding of baptism.

Baptism is not a religious ceremony like a laying a cornerstone outdoor service or a new sanctuary dedication service. These religious ceremonies are not commanded by Christ. Baptism is.

• Baptism is a Divine institution like the Lord’s Supper. It is an express and direct command of Christ directing that it be observed for all time by His church.
• From the Great Commission text, baptism is not optional, just as teaching or preaching is not optional.
• The name of God in your baptism gives baptism it’s distinctiveness apart from a mere religious ceremony.
• THE ONLY TIME AND PLACE WHERE THE TRIUNE FORMULA IS COMMANDED TO BE USED IS IN BAPTISM.
• In baptism, God’s true name is placed upon you by a called servant of the Word.
• Baptism is an official act of the Church.

Credos seem to have a "la de da" understanding of baptism. I see it all over in CF.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Such a casual understanding of baptism.

Baptism is not a religious ceremony like a laying a cornerstone outdoor service or a new sanctuary dedication service. These religious ceremonies are not commanded by Christ. Baptism is.

• Baptism is a Divine institution like the Lord’s Supper. It is an express and direct command of Christ directing that it be observed for all time by His church.
• From the Great Commission text, baptism is not optional, just as teaching or preaching is not optional.
• The name of God in your baptism gives baptism it’s distinctiveness apart from a mere religious ceremony.
• THE ONLY TIME AND PLACE WHERE THE TRIUNE FORMULA IS COMMANDED TO BE USED IS IN BAPTISM.
• In baptism, God’s true name is placed upon you by a called servant of the Word.
• Baptism is an official act of the Church.

Credos seem to have a "la de da" understanding of baptism. I see it all over in CF.

Unfortunately, credobaptists hardly have a monopoly on that view. Syncretistic religious ideology is rampant today. My next door neighbors, who are a millennial couple, have a couple of statues of the Buddha in their front yard along with a plastic human skeleton seated on a plastic chair at the front door (not a Halloween decoration because it is there all year long). I could easily see them choosing and picking aspects of Christianity to add to their grab bag of religion. They do decorate their house for Christmas, but not in a Christian fashion (i.e. Nativity sets) but in a typical fashion (i.e. Christmas tree, outdoor lighting, etc.) I suppose they might self-identify as being "spiritual".

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Unfortunately, credobaptists hardly have a monopoly on that view. Syncretistic religious ideology is rampant today.

I beg to differ. Within SPECIFICALLY Christendom, credos DO have the monopoly on multiple baptism per person. I have never heard of an official position of a paedo mega-theology which did advocate multiple dunkings. Multiple dunkings is specifically an abhorrent practice of the credos. No doubt about it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I doubt that lady informed the various churches that she had been previously baptized. However, if she had been baptized in, say, the Mormon church would you allow her to be baptized in your church? The Mormons assuredly believe their baptism is the one and only baptism needed.

Mormon baptism is invalid. And thus a Mormon converting to Christianity would need to be baptized as a Christian. Unless they had previously received baptism in a Christian church prior to them becoming Mormon.

That aside, if a syncretist, such as one frequently encounters in China and other Asian countries, who maintains an altar to ancestors in their home with a statue of the Buddha along with various other religious statues, including a crucifix and a statue of Mary and various other saints, were to ask for baptism in your church would you welcome them?

Did they previously receive a Christian baptism? If so, then they wouldn't need to be baptized. But we would tell them to give up their false religious practices and to live in the truth of their baptism. If they never received baptism then we would still tell them to give up their false religious practices and assuming they would do so then why would we turn them away? That's the Great Commission of the Church. To welcome all whom God brings.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Via said: Mormon baptism is invalid.

This is so correct. Because credos have such low view of baptism, they don't know the difference between Christian baptism and Mormon baptism.

For Credos, baptism is an empty sign, signifying NOTHING. This is most certainly true.

From this, credos have taken a "take it, or leave it" application of baptism to the believer. We have seen an increase of "leave it" over the last twenty years. More and more credos are choosing NOT to be baptized. Contemporary credos and evangelicals are very comfortable NOT being baptized into the Christian faith.

Reason: Probably pride. "I ain't gonna be dunk, for something that signifies nothing."

Sad.