Five Reasons Why Babies Should be Baptized...

Lamb · May 10, 2017

MoreCoffee said:
I wonder if you see what I typed?

"No one ought to expect forgiveness without repentance."

I did.

Now it would be great if you would provide information based on your beliefs how Jesus' death and forgiveness of sins comes into play with your statement above.

MoreCoffee · May 10, 2017

Lämmchen said:
I did.

Now it would be great if you would provide information based on your beliefs how Jesus' death and forgiveness of sins comes into play with your statement above.

Tell me one thing. Who ought to expect forgiveness without repentance?

Lamb · May 10, 2017

MoreCoffee said:
Tell me one thing. Who ought to expect forgiveness without repentance?

Why won't you respond? A question is not a response.

atpollard · May 10, 2017

Lämmchen said:
Co-condition? You mean the Holy Spirit doesn't provide us with all the conditions to be met for salvation? Repentance is a gift. Scripture states that.

Peter said what he said. If you have a problem with the message presented in Acts, take it up with Peter.

atpollard · May 10, 2017

MoreCoffee said:
I wonder if you see what I typed?

"No one ought to expect forgiveness without repentance."

It doesn't matter.
They are not LISTENING, they are just WAITING TO SPEAK.

atpollard · May 10, 2017

Josiah said:
I didn't baptize myself. I've never known of anyone who baptized himself/herself. Your point about self doing this for self is simply baseless.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

For the THIRD time, I have never claimed that you baptized yourself. I claimed that you were sprinkled by the hand of ANOTHER human being (that means a person other than you). The point was, is, and will remain that water baptism is an act performed by men. God did not sprinkle the water on you with his own hand. Some OTHER human being (not you) sprinkled the water.

I have also, several times, contrasted this with receiving the Holy Spirit, because there is nothing that a human being (you OR any other human being) can do to command the Holy Spirit to enter anyone (either you OR another person). If you prefer, water baptism could instead be contrasted with "circumcision of the heart, not performed by any human hand" which is also something that no human being can do (either to themselves OR to someone else).

Josiah · May 10, 2017

atpollard said:
water baptism is an act performed by men. God did not sprinkle the water on you with his own hand. Some OTHER human being (not you) sprinkled the water.

So what?

I disagree with is your supposed "logical" argument God cannot use any human involvement, any human ministry..... your "logic" here seems to make Jesus wrong when he said we are to "Go ... baptizing and teaching." It is just that sort of "logic" that causes many to ask Calvinists why they bother with evangelism and missions, with Sunday School or preaching sermons. But actually, what you seem to be promoting is a point Lutherans AND Calvinists both equally disagree with. Unlikely what you promote, Lutherans and Calvinists AGREE that God CAN give the Holy Spirit and life and faith and justification.... indeed ONLY God can..... but that typically, usually, He uses MEANS and yes, Christian ministers do participate in those MEANS. Billy Graham did those Crusades extending a Means of Grace.... but Lutherans and Calvinists would argue that GOD used them to GIVE His pure gifts, HIS free gifts, to perform HIS miracle of grace. I disagree with your premise that if humans and means are involved, ergo the Holy Spirit is rendered impotent and cannot be involved.

And I disagree with your division between the Baptism of the Spirit and Baptism. But that's another subject for another day and thread. If you want to go down that Pentecostal route, that's fine but don't hijack this thread with that.

- Josiah

Cassia · May 10, 2017

Whenever I see the word ergo I think of the duck advertised on Amflak. Sorry but what does that actually mean..

Josiah · May 11, 2017

ergo = therefore

atpollard · May 11, 2017

Josiah said:
So what?

I disagree with is your supposed "logical" argument God cannot use any human involvement, any human ministry..... your "logic" here seems to make Jesus wrong when he said we are to "Go ... baptizing and teaching." It is just that sort of "logic" that causes many to ask Calvinists why they bother with evangelism and missions, with Sunday School or preaching sermons. But actually, what you seem to be promoting is a point Lutherans AND Calvinists both equally disagree with. Unlikely what you promote, Lutherans and Calvinists AGREE that God CAN give the Holy Spirit and life and faith and justification.... indeed ONLY God can..... but that typically, usually, He uses MEANS and yes, Christian ministers do participate in those MEANS. Billy Graham did those Crusades extending a Means of Grace.... but Lutherans and Calvinists would argue that GOD used them to GIVE His pure gifts, HIS free gifts, to perform HIS miracle of grace. I disagree with your premise that if humans and means are involved, ergo the Holy Spirit is rendered impotent and cannot be involved.

And I disagree with your division between the Baptism of the Spirit and Baptism. But that's another subject for another day and thread. If you want to go down that Pentecostal route, that's fine but don't hijack this thread with that.

- Josiah

So what, you ask. So two things.

1. You can now go back and read what I posted pages and pages ago and respond to what I actually said rather than what I did NOT say that you have 'refuted' over and over and over.

2. Now that you understand that water baptism is an actual real act performed by human beings, we can advance the conversation.
What happens, in Lutheran theology, when a baby is baptized? Is it purely symbolic? Is it saved? Does it receive the Holy Spirit? Why did you baptize it? What was accomplished? (I know the Presbyterian answer, but need to confirm what Lutherans believe).

[PS. That was NOT my logic, I am not arguing that God cannot use any human involvement. We could never get past accepting that there was a difference between what God does and what people can do. I never got to my ultimate point.]

Lamb · May 11, 2017

atpollard said:
Peter said what he said. If you have a problem with the message presented in Acts, take it up with Peter.

Please don't be rude. Peter wasn't giving a Repent then be baptized statement. He said And. For those who have repented but haven't been baptized and years have passed...is that okay by you? If so, why?

Lamb · May 11, 2017

atpollard said:
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

For the THIRD time, I have never claimed that you baptized yourself. I claimed that you were sprinkled by the hand of ANOTHER human being (that means a person other than you). The point was, is, and will remain that water baptism is an act performed by men. God did not sprinkle the water on you with his own hand. Some OTHER human being (not you) sprinkled the water.

I have also, several times, contrasted this with receiving the Holy Spirit, because there is nothing that a human being (you OR any other human being) can do to command the Holy Spirit to enter anyone (either you OR another person). If you prefer, water baptism could instead be contrasted with "circumcision of the heart, not performed by any human hand" which is also something that no human being can do (either to themselves OR to someone else).

Do you think God's word is present in baptism?

ImaginaryDay2 · May 11, 2017

atpollard said:
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [NKJV]

On what authority do you pick and choose which parts of God's command to obey?

I'd ask the credo-baptist the same thing. How long must/can one wait? On what authority do you pick and choose which parts of God's command to obey? These days it's optional (or at least wait until you've completed the 'Alpha' course), since it's only a sign of an "inward cleansing"

atpollard · May 11, 2017

ImaginaryDay2 said:
I'd ask the credo-baptist the same thing. How long must/can one wait? On what authority do you pick and choose which parts of God's command to obey? These days it's optional (or at least wait until you've completed the 'Alpha' course), since it's only a sign of an "inward cleansing"

I can only answer for one person, me.

Peter described two things to be done (repent and be baptized), made the command universal (every one of you), explained why (for the remission of sins), and promised a specific result (receive the gift of the Holy Spirit).

The only question is have you (not YOU, but anyone) done all Peter commanded, for the reason Peter commanded with the result that Peter promised?
That is not a question for me to answer for any other soul.
I believe that I have ... I repented and was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of my sins, which were many, and I did receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. As far as I am concerned, anyone who WANTS to do the same can expect my enthusiastic cheers and support.

I have not seen a convincing argument that any baby is "repenting and being baptized for the remission of sins and shall recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit."
So I cannot stand on the side and cheer for the baptism of someone who may or may not have repented, the purpose of which baptism may or may not be the remission of sins, and who may or may not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Sorry, I wish I COULD offer more encouragement.

The best that I can say is "Do what you think right."
I would hope to be granted the same liberty.

atpollard · May 11, 2017

Lämmchen said:
Please don't be rude. Peter wasn't giving a Repent then be baptized statement. He said And. For those who have repented but haven't been baptized and years have passed...is that okay by you? If so, why?

I was not trying to be rude, but Peter commanded two actions: "repent" ... "be baptized".
You were arguing against the need for two commanded actions.
I did not feel qualified to explain why Peter wrote what he wrote and I was DEFINITELY not going to contradict scripture and tell you that "Peter didn't mean what he wrote". So I had little choice but to suggest that you take your problem with Peter up with Peter. I cannot answer for Peter.

For the record, I am not saying THEN, but I am saying AND. Peter said AND. Are Lutherans doing AND?

It does not matter if it is OK with me or not of an adult repents and refuses to get baptized. I did not give the command, God did (through Peter) so the question is "Is God OK with it?" I would give the same answer for Lutheran babies, it does not matter what I think, what matters is what God commanded and what He thinks. I am not a prophet. I do not speak for God. I only read his word and talk about what it actually says.

Which is what I have done.

atpollard · May 11, 2017

Lämmchen said:
Do you think God's word is present in baptism?

In the baptism (and repentence) commanded by Peter for the remission of sins and to secure the gift of the Holy Spirit ... Yes, definitely.
In the baptism performed by Lutherans on babies that appears to comply with only some of what Peter commanded ... I have no idea.
God CAN do anything. What God CHOOSES to do, is above my pay grade (he does not consult with me before making a decision).

MoreCoffee · May 12, 2017

Lämmchen said:
Why won't you respond? A question is not a response.

I did not answer your question because it was answered in the short sentence that I wrote before. Evidently the statement "No one ought to expect forgiveness without repentance." needs to be broken down before it can be understood. So I started to break it down by asking "Who ought to expect forgiveness without repentance?" if the answer is "no one" then maybe progress is made. If it is something else then let's see what it is. Your question was "how Jesus' death and forgiveness of sins comes into play with your statement above." And the answer is "No one can be forgiven without Jesus' saving work" but I still wonder how you answer my question: Who ought to expect forgiveness without repentance?

Lamb · May 12, 2017

MoreCoffee said:
I did not answer your question because it was answered in the short sentence that I wrote before. Evidently the statement "No one ought to expect forgiveness without repentance." needs to be broken down before it can be understood. So I started to break it down by asking "Who ought to expect forgiveness without repentance?" if the answer is "no one" then maybe progress is made. If it is something else then let's see what it is. Your question was "how Jesus' death and forgiveness of sins comes into play with your statement above." And the answer is "No one can be forgiven without Jesus' saving work" but I still wonder how you answer my question: Who ought to expect forgiveness without repentance?

Those who receive the gift of repentance and by grace through faith in the Savior receive forgiveness that Jesus won at the cross. That's my response to you and it won't change. It's the work of the Holy Spirit to bring us to repentance (scripture says it's a gift) and He gives us the gift of faith and it's all connected to the work on the cross done by Jesus since forgiveness was won there first before it could be given out.

psalms 91 · May 12, 2017

Lämmchen said:
Those who receive the gift of repentance and by grace through faith in the Savior receive forgiveness that Jesus won at the cross. That's my response to you and it won't change. It's the work of the Holy Spirit to bring us to repentance (scripture says it's a gift) and He gives us the gift of faith and it's all connected to the work on the cross done by Jesus since forgiveness was won there first before it could be given out.

If that is the case then whose work is it when you are convicted and still do the same sin? Does that not show free will and choice or is that also the work of the Holy Spirit?

Lamb · May 12, 2017

atpollard said:
I was not trying to be rude, but Peter commanded two actions: "repent" ... "be baptized".
You were arguing against the need for two commanded actions.
I did not feel qualified to explain why Peter wrote what he wrote and I was DEFINITELY not going to contradict scripture and tell you that "Peter didn't mean what he wrote". So I had little choice but to suggest that you take your problem with Peter up with Peter. I cannot answer for Peter.

For the record, I am not saying THEN, but I am saying AND. Peter said AND. Are Lutherans doing AND?

It does not matter if it is OK with me or not of an adult repents and refuses to get baptized. I did not give the command, God did (through Peter) so the question is "Is God OK with it?" I would give the same answer for Lutheran babies, it does not matter what I think, what matters is what God commanded and what He thinks. I am not a prophet. I do not speak for God. I only read his word and talk about what it actually says.

Which is what I have done.

So why isn't it okay for babies to be baptized (water and the Word is what scriptures say that baptism is) and then later give a confession of faith that states their repentance?

Five Reasons Why Babies Should be Baptized...

God's Lil Lamb

Well-known member

God's Lil Lamb

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

simul justus et peccator

Well-known member

simul justus et peccator

Well-known member

God's Lil Lamb

God's Lil Lamb

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

God's Lil Lamb

Well-known member

God's Lil Lamb