Credobaptists - What about those with disabilities and baptism?

[atpollard]

I can appreciate how frustrated you must feel, being incapable of understanding even rather rudimentary theological concepts. And that comment of yours above certainly shows the frustration and confusion. I choose not to explain the point yet one more time, however, and it cannot be simplified any further than has already been done.

Proverbs 26:4 :hand:

 

[Josiah]

Here are MARTIN LUTHER'S views (not necessarily those of Lutheranism):


Errors Personally Rejected by Luther:

That infants and children before the age of reason cannot have saving faith.
That children are saved by the faith of the sponsors.
That children are saved by the faith of the church.
That children are saved by the power of the sacrament.
That in baptism children are brought to the Gospel and the church but are not saved because they cannot have faith.
That there are two kinds of baptism, one for adults and another for children.
That the words of Christ to "Suffer the little children to come unto me" mean spiritual children who are small in humility.
That adult "reason" is necessary for faith.


Truths Personally Affirmed by Luther

That Christ commanded us to bring the children to Him.
That infants acquire faith as a gift of God.
That this faith is for salvation (not one of intellectual understanding, comprehension or facts, but the gift of God, Ephesians 2;8-9).
That the Lord's standard is not that of adult intellectual faith, but that adults must become as little children.
That this faith appropriates the blessings of Baptism.
That this baptism is the same baptism for children and adults.
That there is no salvation apart from faith in Christ, even with baptism. Faith is the hand that reaches into the waters of baptism and retrieves the pearl of salvation.


[Note: Luther teaches that true baptism is water connected with the Word of God. When properly administered in connection with the Word it is always a Godly baptism, even if the candidate lacks faith. The lack of faith, however, means the benefits of baptism are not appropriated to him. When that person genuinely believes, the benefits of baptism are applied to him, it is not necessary to be rebaptized. Luther is NOT suggesting to baptize someone whom we know to be without faith, he is saying only that the problem is not in the Baptism, but in the lack of faith. How can we know if an infant has faith? We cannot know with certainty, just as as we cannot know whether an adult profession is genuine. With an adult we look at his life and hear his confession, his testimony and on that basis we believe he has faith. With an infant we look at the parents and sponsors, as Luther puts it the "alien faith" and trust God's promises that He receives the children brought to Him and brings them into the Kingdom Of God as He promised.]


.

Not that I agree (which makes sense since I am not a Lutheran), but at least it addresses the relationship between baptism, faith and salvation with respect to infants. I notice that the parenthetical comment does not appear to be by Martin Luther. It makes clear that not all babies have faith and that God determines which baptisms are ‘effective’. I only point this out because this is an accusation commonly made against Paedobaptists and vehemently denied by them. It is easy to see where the potential misunderstandings can come from.

Not all of Luther's comments are specifically stated in the Lutheran Confessions (Remember: Lutheranism is defined by the Confessions, not by Luther). BUT I think all that I quoted IS held in Lutheranism and generally by the traditional/orthodox non-prohibition view.


Yes, I think that 500 years of the Anabaptists preaching of Anti-Paedobaptism/Credobaptism/Age of Accountability/Radical synergism have led to much misunderstanding of the orthodox/traditional view (and we see that every day here at CH).


I think it comes down to the following:


1. This thing that is SO very much stressed in the NT, so important in the NT, a part of the Great Commission (equal to teaching), so very important in the early church.... is it ineffectual to anything, meaningless, useless (largely a waste of time and energy) as Anabaptist/Baptists often claim..... or is it part of God's plan and work?


2. It is generally admitted that at least from 63 AD on, infants of believers were baptized and this continued without exception for nearly 1500 years (even informed Anabaptists admit this). The Anti-Paedobaptism/Credobaptism/Age of Accountability view came very suddenly, out-of-the-blue, by the very radical Anabaptist moving in Germany which largely protested the soteriology of Lutheranism and replaced it with radical synergism. At this point, the Anabaptist view of baptism first appeared. We all (well all who know the history) acknowledge this. So, WHAT exactly did these radical Protestants in Germany suddenly notice in Scripture that none had seen before? What clear, biblical insight did these Germans have that had entirely alluded every Christian prior to that?


3. The apologetic for this new view uses a UNIQUE rubric (one they NEVER use for ANYTHING else) - ironically, a Roman Catholic one: That what is normative is not the teachings of the Bible but the practices we see illustrated in the few examples we see in the Bible. The apologetic is typically: "EVERY example of people receiving Baptism is that they were adults who first confessed their sins, chose Jesus as their personal Savior, publicly declared that, and requested to be baptized." Of course, this is false (it must ASSUMED everything about the 5 "household" examples of baptism) but that's not the problem (and they won't acknowledge their assumptions anyway), the problem is the epistemology: That teachings aren't normative, the illustrations we see in the Bible are. That we can't do what we don't see illustrated in the Bible and must do what we do see illustrated. They make this point at times by posting on the internet and never see the irony there.... they do this in church where nearly everything they did during the entire service is never once illustrated anywhere in the Bible and never see the irony there. So the issue is this: What is normative: Scripture (Sola Scriptura) or the RCC alternative: Someone's spin on what we see illustrated as done in the Bible?


4. CAN God give faith to those under the age of X? Do those under the age of X need faith and/or are blessed by faith? The answer here (99% of the time) flows from whether one is a monergist or radical synergist. Monergists (even modest synergists like Catholicism) tend to say that God IS able - indeed that God at times DOES give effectual, saving faith to those under the age of X. Radical synergists (like the Anabaptists who invented this radical new veiw) insist that since we must attain a certain level of ABILITY before we can perform the things we must do in order to achieve the things self needs to do in the salvation of self, they insist that they CANNOT have faith since faith is an achievement THEY make (not a blessing God gives). Thus their entirely intertwined invented of The Age of Accountability. They don't ALL argue that those under the age of X are sinless (they are strongly divided on this point) but it's entirely irrelevant they all agree since God just winks at sin for those who are not yet able to save themselves. Thus, while the Anabaptist/Baptist view is that baptism before the age of X is FORBIDDEN, PROHIBITED many Anabaptist just hold it is worthless - in the case of infants and well everyone else too, thus a minority of Anabaptists aren't against DOING it just claiming that it's anything but a waste of time and water and that God CANNOT use it for anything cuz He just cannot.


5. A FEW Anbaptist/Baptists will insist the Bible actually states, "Thou canst NOT baptize anyone prior to the age of X." They'll INSIST the Bible states that, and they are only parroting exactly what the Bible says. MennoSota here has made a constant point that we all must entirely ignore any and all denominational spin and interpretation and views, and instead, note the words we all see on the pages of the Bible. This is a constant cry of this small minority of Baptists. They bury themselves since there is no such verse. There is no verse either that says, "Thou canst baptize anyone unless they FIRST attaineth the Age of X, chooseth Jesus as their personal Savior and declareth such publicly and adequately." Most Anabaptist/Baptists KNOW their position is absent in the Bible and absent from 1500 years of the church - they just don't care, they declare bold DOGMA nonetheless.


These are the points that go round and round and round.... forever..... for nearly 500 years now.



A blessed Lenten season to all.....



- Josiah

 

[Albion]

I am glad that this is not my problem to figure out. At this point, I am just here for the cookies and coffee.

I'm glad that it isn't my problem any longer, also.

As for the cookies and coffee...you seem to me to have a good grasp of the eternal verities, so coffee and cookies it is...and right now. :thumbsup:

 

[atpollard]

Yes, I think that 500 years of the Anabaptists preaching of Anti-Paedobaptism/Credobaptism/Age of Accountability/Radical synergism have led to much misunderstanding of the orthodox/traditional view (and we see that every day here at CH).

"Reformed Baptists (sometimes known as Particular Baptists or Calvinistic Baptists) are Baptists that hold to a Calvinist soteriology. They can trace their history through the early modern Particular Baptists of England. The first Reformed Baptist church was formed in the 1630s. The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith was written along Reformed Baptist lines."

Monergistic Baptists have also been around since the 1630's, so Synergystic Anabaptism remained unchallenged by the truth of Monergism for less than 100 years. It is ironic, is it not, that people began to question Church Tradition and Teaching on infant baptism at about the same time they were actually able to read their own printed Bible in their own language rather than being forced to trust a priest to tell them what God said?

 

[NewCreation435]

Staff Notice

Please refrain from making personal comments about each other and stick to the topic. If there are further insulting
comments made the thread will be shut down. Questioning a persons intelligent or other abilities is insulting and inappropriate.

 

[Josiah]

It is ironic, is it not, that people began to question Church Tradition and Teaching on infant baptism at about the same time they were actually able to read their own printed Bible in their own language rather than being forced to trust a priest to tell them what God said?

You might have a point, perhaps, if there was some verse (as many insist there is) that states, "But thou canst NOT baptize or teach any under the age of X (but you will not be told what age that is)." Or "But thou art forbidden to baptize or teach any who have insufficient abilities to choose Jesus as their personal Savior on their own." Or, "But thou canst NOT baptize or teach any for this renders God impotent to save them." Or "But thou canst not baptize or teach any under the age of X because it is impossible for God to give them faith." If there were words in the Bible they now could read that the RCC hide from them. But that's not the case. Those verses don't exist. Thus more being able to read the word than was the case for some 1000 years had nothing to do with their radical synergism producing Anti-Paedobaptism/Credobaptism/Age of Accountability. It was not a case of the RCC hiding those verses (and now they could read them) it was a case of radical synergism's quite understandable need to invent anti-paedobaptism/credobaptism/Age of Accountability.


What is ironic is the abandonment of Sola Scriptura and instead embracing the Roman Catholic rubric: that what is normative is not what the Bible says (such as "GO.... BAPTIZE... TEACH" and "These infants who believe in me") but rather insisting the norm is what we see ILLUSTRATED as PERFORMED in SOME of the cases of things that happen to be recorded in the NT. This is why these Anabaptists didn't quote anything that states we are mandated to forbid those under the age of X from being baptized (Scripture not being the norm here) and instead go on and on and on about "MOST of the cases of baptism that just happen to be recorded in the pages of the NT suggest that all baptized were old enough to do their part in the salvation of themselves, first choose Jesus as their personal Savior, first made an adequate and public profession of such faith and THEN the prohibition to baptize was lifted." It's the chief apologetic of anabaptists/baptist on this part: Not what Scripture says (because it says to go ... baptize... teach, it says infants can be given faith) but rather what they gather from SOME of the examples that happen to be recorded in the Bible..... insisting we must do what we see illustrated by examples and cannot do what we don't see (their norm)... which they may insist by posting on the internet.

I think it comes down to the following:


1. This thing that is SO very much stressed in the NT, so important in the NT, a part of the Great Commission (equal to teaching), so very important in the early church.... is it ineffectual to anything, meaningless, useless (largely a waste of time and energy) as Anabaptist/Baptists often claim..... or is it part of God's plan and work?


2. It is generally admitted that at least from 63 AD on, infants of believers were baptized and this continued without exception for nearly 1500 years (even informed Anabaptists admit this). The Anti-Paedobaptism/Credobaptism/Age of Accountability view came very suddenly, out-of-the-blue, by the very radical Anabaptist moving in Germany which largely protested the soteriology of Lutheranism and replaced it with radical synergism. At this point, the Anabaptist view of baptism first appeared. We all (well all who know the history) acknowledge this. So, WHAT exactly did these radical Protestants in Germany suddenly notice in Scripture that none had seen before? What clear, biblical insight did these Germans have that had entirely alluded every Christian prior to that?


3. The apologetic for this new view uses a UNIQUE rubric (one they NEVER use for ANYTHING else) - ironically, a Roman Catholic one: That what is normative is not the teachings of the Bible but the practices we see illustrated in the few examples we see in the Bible. The apologetic is typically: "EVERY example of people receiving Baptism is that they were adults who first confessed their sins, chose Jesus as their personal Savior, publicly declared that, and requested to be baptized." Of course, this is false (it must ASSUMED everything about the 5 "household" examples of baptism) but that's not the problem (and they won't acknowledge their assumptions anyway), the problem is the epistemology: That teachings aren't normative, the illustrations we see in the Bible are. That we can't do what we don't see illustrated in the Bible and must do what we do see illustrated. They make this point at times by posting on the internet and never see the irony there.... they do this in church where nearly everything they did during the entire service is never once illustrated anywhere in the Bible and never see the irony there. So the issue is this: What is normative: Scripture (Sola Scriptura) or the RCC alternative: Someone's spin on what we see illustrated as done in the Bible?


4. CAN God give faith to those under the age of X? Do those under the age of X need faith and/or are blessed by faith? The answer here (99% of the time) flows from whether one is a monergist or radical synergist. Monergists (even modest synergists like Catholicism) tend to say that God IS able - indeed that God at times DOES give effectual, saving faith to those under the age of X. Radical synergists (like the Anabaptists who invented this radical new veiw) insist that since we must attain a certain level of ABILITY before we can perform the things we must do in order to achieve the things self needs to do in the salvation of self, they insist that they CANNOT have faith since faith is an achievement THEY make (not a blessing God gives). Thus their entirely intertwined invented of The Age of Accountability. They don't ALL argue that those under the age of X are sinless (they are strongly divided on this point) but it's entirely irrelevant they all agree since God just winks at sin for those who are not yet able to save themselves. Thus, while the Anabaptist/Baptist view is that baptism before the age of X is FORBIDDEN, PROHIBITED many Anabaptist just hold it is worthless - in the case of infants and well everyone else too, thus a minority of Anabaptists aren't against DOING it just claiming that it's anything but a waste of time and water and that God CANNOT use it for anything cuz He just cannot.


5. A FEW Anbaptist/Baptists will insist the Bible actually states, "Thou canst NOT baptize anyone prior to the age of X." They'll INSIST the Bible states that, and they are only parroting exactly what the Bible says. MennoSota here has made a constant point that we all must entirely ignore any and all denominational spin and interpretation and views, and instead, note the words we all see on the pages of the Bible. This is a constant cry of this small minority of Baptists. They bury themselves since there is no such verse. There is no verse either that says, "Thou canst NOT baptize anyone unless they FIRST attaineth the Age of X, first chooseth Jesus as their personal Savior and first declareth such publicly and adequately, only then art the prohibition on Baptism that Jesus made lifted." Most Anabaptist/Baptists KNOW their position is absent in the Bible and absent from 1500 years of the church - they just don't care, they declare bold, new DOGMA nonetheless.


These are the points that go round and round and round.... forever..... for nearly 500 years now.



.

.

 

[Albion]

What is ironic is the abandonment of Sola Scriptura and instead embracing the Roman Catholic rubric: that what is normative is not what the Bible says (such as "GO.... BAPTIZE... TEACH" and "These infants who believe in me") but rather insisting the norm is what we see ILLUSTRATED as PERFORMED in SOME of the cases of things that happen to be recorded in the NT. This is why these Anabaptists didn't quote anything that states we are mandated to forbid those under the age of X from being baptized (Scripture not being the norm here) and instead go on and on and on about "MOST of the cases of baptism that just happen to be recorded in the pages of the NT suggest that all baptized were old enough to do their part in the salvation of themselves, first choose Jesus as their personal Savior, first made an adequate and public profession of such faith and THEN the prohibition to baptize was lifted." .

So, actually, there are two deficiencies in that Anabaptist revisionism--abandonment of Sola Scriptura AND the promotion of a factual error concerning Scripture.

There are, in fact, no more examples in the NT of adults being baptized on their faith than other people who were baptized and for whom there is NO evidence whatsoever that they made any such professions or were asked to do so.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

It is ironic, is it not, that people began to question Church Tradition and Teaching on infant baptism at about the same time they were actually able to read their own printed Bible in their own language rather than being forced to trust a priest to tell them what God said?

And so, subjectivism reared it's beautiful head. Scripture does not specifically say this, so it must mean that. We have to understand, too, that those "reading in their own language" were unlearned. They weren't typically scholars of the time, but common people who had little knowledge or ability to understand or study what the bible truly said (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc.). While it may have been true that reasons for the Reformation were many, and necessary, different factions throwing out all of tradition in favor of relativism was hardly an improvement.

 

[Albion]

and at the time of the Reformation, most people were literate.

It's a popular assumption that they were not, that's all. But your main point is correct in that being able to read doesn't solve everything, not when the church is telling you that you're bound for hell or the stake if you don't believe everything that the leaders tell you, Scripture or no Scripture.

 

[meluckycharms]

Staff Notice

Please refrain from making personal comments about each other and stick to the topic. If there are further insulting
comments made the thread will be shut down. Questioning a persons intelligent or other abilities is insulting and inappropriate.

That's right! I think we all need to be mature enough to realize that an attack on your position is not an attack on you or God. There is absolutely no need to take things personally or make personal attacks. However, admittedly I am the worst about chasing squirrels.

 

[Josiah]

So, actually, there are two deficiencies in that Anabaptist revisionism--abandonment of Sola Scriptura AND the promotion of a factual error concerning Scripture.

There are, in fact, no more examples in the NT of adults being baptized on their faith than other people who were baptized and for whom there is NO evidence whatsoever that they made any such professions or were asked to do so.

Well.... I'd put it this way:


1. As we know, the Anabaptist was a VERY radical movement, mostly aimed at Lutheranism and Calvinism; a radical synergistic movement. And it tended to be void of scholars. Now, IF we approach the whole issue of children from their new perspective, their radical new invented dogma of Anti-paedoism/Credobaptism/Age of Accountability simply is a LOGICAL deduction. Obviously, Scripture says NOTHING about baptism and teaching being prohibited based on age (and HONEST baptist generally admit this). BUT can a baby or even a young child be expected to perform the good works necessary to earn salvation? Can a baby or young child be expected to UNDERSTAND all the things of God? Can a baby or young child be expected to feel remorse? Can a baby or young child be expected to chant the Sinner's Prayer or come forward at an Altar Call or give an adequate, public declaration of their faith in Jesus as their personal Savior? Well, I think we all agree they cannot (in fact, most of us would agree that no one can at ANY age!!!!!). Thus... this thing Catholics and (more to the point) Lutherans and Calvinists were doing is NONSENSE! Why would God make some meaningless, useless ritual so important, and equal in the Great Commission equal to teaching? HARD TO KNOW! But doing it is meaningless! Now, they could have stopped there..... they could have just said, "Well, do it but know you are wasting your time and God's." But this was a radical, extreme movement - angry at Lutherans and Calvinists. So they went on to insist it's actually PROHIBITED, divinely FORBIDDEN. Do they have ANYTHING in Scripture that remotely indicates this, that remotely supports there new Anti-Lutheran, Anti-Calvinist dogma? No (and again, many Baptist will freely admit this). The anabaptist movement brought back a LONG-AGO condemned heresy: Pelagianism. And their invention of Anti-paedobaptism/credobaptism/Age of Accountability just flows LOGICALLY from that. Of course, since radical synergism (and cooresponding Arminianism) are today widely embraced, there is an appeal for this LOGICAL extension.


2. As I mentioned above, there are Baptist laity who will insist this prohibition is stated in Scripture. They are TOLD to go by what the words of the Bible say, and they are TOLD there is this big PROHIBITION on Baptism that Jesus stressed, so they just "connect the dots." The problem is a lot of these Baptists have actually read the NT and they KNOW this prohibition is absent. So, "Sola Scriptura" abandoned (in this individual case, not generally), they direct their attention instead to the Catholic rubric: It is what the denomination says HAPPENED (in most cases) that is the rule/norm, not what the Bible says. Jesus gave the keys to Peter so...... Jesus gave authority to the Apostles so..... The Apostle James called an Ecumenical Council so...... These Anabaptist (out to rebuke Lutherans and Calvinists) shouted, "MOST of the examples of baptism that happen to be recorded in the Bible show that the receiver was over the age of X, had first chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, had first made public and manifest their sorrow for sin, had first made an adequate, public, verbal proclamation of their having chose Jesus and THEREFORE the general prohibition on Baptism was lifted and they were baptized!" I don't agree with their take, but the MUCH bigger issue is their rubric, the norm they are insisting upon: We can only do what we see illustrated in the pages of the NT and cannot do otherwise, that it is what was DONE (sometimes but not always) in the NT tht is the basis for dogma, not what is taught. THAT'S the rubric here. And we see it affirmed all over in this thread and several threads here at CH. Along with another of their new dogmas: Those under the age of X cannot believe (because they can't do their own part in the salvation of themselves).


I hope that helps....



- Josiah



[PS, to Albion...... The Reformation is often divided into two VERY different parts. The first (that of Luther and Calvin, and theologically anyway to the Anglican Church). This is sometimes called the "conservative" or "first wave" Reformation. While clearly departing from the current day popular Catholicism (made official at Trent and after the Reformation), it didn't "throw the baby out with the bathwater." It didn't reject things SIMPLY because they were also embraced by Catholics and they were not motivated by a great hatred for the Catholic Church. But then came the "radical Reformation" or the "second wave" that includes the Anabaptists and what Lutherans and Calvinists called "the Enthusiasts" and those who took things into the political realm. Those Radicals were often MORE angry at Lutherans and Anglicans than at Catholism because they saw those first wave Reformers as monergists. They were Revolutionaries..... believing we must destroy and rebuild, they did throw the baby out with the bathwater, lol. Thing is: some of their thinking became popular and is now quite modern, and thus popular - far more now than when they began and were a tiny, mocked, radical group of "wackadodles" ReReformation is, sadly, not infrequently followed by Revolution. Admission: As a conservative, traditional, moneristic Lutheran - I'm at times more confortable with Catholicism than those radical revolutionaries.... but rejoice it doesn't have to be either/or, lol]




.

 

[atpollard]

You might have a point, perhaps, if there was some verse (as many insist there is) that states, "But thou canst NOT baptize or teach any under the age of X (but you will not be told what age that is)." Or "But thou art forbidden to baptize or teach any who have insufficient abilities to choose Jesus as their personal Savior on their own." Or, "But thou canst NOT baptize or teach any for this renders God impotent to save them." Or "But thou canst not baptize or teach any under the age of X because it is impossible for God to give them faith." If there were words in the Bible they now could read that the RCC hide from them. But that's not the case. Those verses don't exist. Thus more being able to read the word than was the case for some 1000 years had nothing to do with their radical synergism producing Anti-Paedobaptism/Credobaptism/Age of Accountability. It was not a case of the RCC hiding those verses (and now they could read them) it was a case of radical synergism's quite understandable need to invent anti-paedobaptism/credobaptism/Age of Accountability.

Just the oft quoted command from the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Peter: "Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38) and the command of Jesus: "And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned." (Mark 16:15-16).

Unfortunately, we only have the words of God without priests to explain that "and" does not really mean "and" because the people that translated the Bible don't properly understand 'kai'. :;;D:

What is ironic is the abandonment of Sola Scriptura and instead embracing the Roman Catholic rubric: that what is normative is not what the Bible says (such as "GO.... BAPTIZE... TEACH" and "These infants who believe in me") but rather insisting the norm is what we see ILLUSTRATED as PERFORMED in SOME of the cases of things that happen to be recorded in the NT. This is why these Anabaptists didn't quote anything that states we are mandated to forbid those under the age of X from being baptized (Scripture not being the norm here) and instead go on and on and on about "MOST of the cases of baptism that just happen to be recorded in the pages of the NT suggest that all baptized were old enough to do their part in the salvation of themselves, first choose Jesus as their personal Savior, first made an adequate and public profession of such faith and THEN the prohibition to baptize was lifted." It's the chief apologetic of anabaptists/baptist on this part: Not what Scripture says (because it says to go ... baptize... teach, it says infants can be given faith) but rather what they gather from SOME of the examples that happen to be recorded in the Bible..... insisting we must do what we see illustrated by examples and cannot do what we don't see (their norm)... which they may insist by posting on the internet.

Good thing the Particular Baptists came along by 1630, then.

***

"GO.... BAPTIZE... TEACH" is actually Matthew 28:19-20 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
Why do you have two plans for "making disciples" according to the Great Commission (one for infants and one for adults)?
If you honestly believe that the way that God commanded you to make disciples is to start with baptism and a pledge to teach, then teach them all that Jesus taught and then wait to see if God will grant them faith, then why do you not encourage unbelieving adults and visitors to first get baptized while the church pledges to teach them, and then teach them all that Jesus taught and wait to see if God will grant them faith? Do you encourage visitors to get baptized as the first step towards salvation?
If not, then why the double standard?

***

"These infants who believe in me" Seems to come from Matthew 18

Matthew 18:1-6
1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, 3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Matthew 18:2 "child" = G3813 = paidion = of a more advanced child
Matthew 18:3 "children" = G3813 = paidion = In plural of (partly grown) children
Matthew 18:4 "child" = G3813 = paidion = of a more advanced child
Matthew 18:6 "little ones" = G3398 = mikros mikros = the little ones, young children

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 3813: παιδίον
παιδίον, παιδίου, τό (diminutive of παῖς) (from Herodotus down), the Sept. for טַף, נַעַר, בֵּן, etc.; a young child, a little boy, a little girl; plural τά παιδία, infants; children; little ones. In singular: universally, of an infant just born, John 16:21; of a (male) child recently born, Matthew 2:8, 11, 13, 14, 20; Luke 1:59, 66, 76, 80; Luke 2:17, 21 (Rec.), 21,40; Hebrews 11:23; of a more advanced child, Matthew 18:2, 4; Mark 9:36f; (Mark 10:15); Luke 9:47f; (Luke 18:17); of a mature child, Mark 9:24; τίνος, the son of someone, John 4:49; of a girl, Mark 5:39-41; (Mark 7:30 L text T Tr WH). In plural of (partly grown) children: Matthew 11:16 G L T Tr WH; Matthew 14:21; 15:38; 18:3; 19:13f; Mark 7:28; Mark 10:13ff; Luke 7:32; Luke 18:16; (Hebrews 2:14); τίνος, of someone, Luke 11:7, cf. Hebrews 2:13. Metaphorically, παιδία ταῖς φρεσί, children (i. e. like children) where the use of the mind is required, 1 Corinthians 14:20; in affectionate address, equivalent to Latincarissimi (A. V. children), John 21:5; 1 John 2:14 (13),18; (1 John 3:7 WH marginal reading Synonym: see παῖς, at the end.)

STRONGS NT 3398: μικρός
μικρός, μικρά, μικρόν, comparitive μικρότερος, μικροτερα, ἐρον (from Homer down), the Sept. for קָטֹן, קָטָן, מְעַט, small, little; used a. of size: Matthew 13:32; Mark 4:31; hence, of stature, τῇ ἡλικία, Luke 19:3; of length, James 3:5.
b. of space: neuter προελθών (προσελθών, T Tr WH marginal reading in Matthew, Tr WH marginal reading in Mark (see προσέρχομαι, a.)) μικρόν, having gone forward a little, Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:35 (cf. Winers Grammar, § 32,6; Buttmann, § 131, 11f).
c. of age: less by birth, younger, Mark 15:40 (others take this of stature); οἱ μικροί, the little ones, young children, Matthew 18:6, 10, 14; Mark 9:42; ἐπο μικροῦ ἕως μεγάλου (A. V. from the least to the greatest), Acts 8:10; Hebrews 8:11 (Jeremiah 6:13; Jeremiah 38:34 (Jer. 31:34)); μικρός τέ καί μέγας (both small and great) i. e. all, Acts 26:22; plural, Revelation 11:18; Revelation 13:16; Revelation 19:5, 18; Revelation 20:12.
d. of time, short, brief: neuter — nominative, ἔτι (or ἔτι omitted) μικρόν (namely, ἔσται) καί (yet) a little while and etc. i. e. shortly (this shall come to pass), John 14:19; John 16:16f, 19 ((cf. Exodus 17:4)); ἔτι μικρόν ὅσον ὅσον (see ὅσος, a.); without καί, Hebrews 10:37 (Isaiah 26:20); τό μικρόν (Tr WH omits τό), John 16:18; — μικρόν accusative (of duration), John 13:33 (Job 36:2); μικρόν χρόνον, John 7:33; John 12:35; Revelation 6:11; Revelation 20:3; μετά μικρόν, after a little while, Matthew 26:73; Mark 14:70, (πρό μικροῦ, Wis. 15:8).
e. of quantity, i. e. number or amount: μικρά ζύμη, 1 Corinthians 5:6; Galatians 5:9; of number, μικρόν ποιμιον, Luke 12:32; of quantity, μικρά δύναμις, Revelation 3:8; neuter μικρόν (τί), a little, 2 Corinthians 11:1, 16.
f. of rank or influence: Matthew 10:42; Luke 9:48; Luke 17:2; ὁ μικρότερος ἐν τῇ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, he that is inferior to the other citizens of the kingdom of heaven in knowledge of the gospel (R. V. but little in etc.; cf. Winers Grammar, 244 (229); Buttmann, § 123, 13), Matthew 11:11; Luke 7:28.

None of the words in these verses mean "infants". The word paidion (G3813) can mean 'infant' and does in a verse like John 16:21 or Matthew 2:8, but it does not mean infant in Matthew 18.

The chief apologetic of the Particular Baptists of 1630 is to obey the command to baptize those who confess and believe, rather than starting the discipleship process by baptizing those who do not confess or claim to believe. It is not directly about a specific age, it is about following an explicit command (repeated several times).

 

[MennoSota]

And so, subjectivism reared it's beautiful head. Scripture does not specifically say this, so it must mean that. We have to understand, too, that those "reading in their own language" were unlearned. They weren't typically scholars of the time, but common people who had little knowledge or ability to understand or study what the bible truly said (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc.). While it may have been true that reasons for the Reformation were many, and necessary, different factions throwing out all of tradition in favor of relativism was hardly an improvement.

This statement is ironic:

And so, subjectivism reared it's beautiful head. Scripture does not specifically say this, so it must mean that.

That is the exact argument being used to teach the legitimacy of infant baptism.

 

[Albion]

[PS, to Albion...... The Reformation is often divided into two VERY different parts. The first (that of Luther and Calvin, and theologically anyway to the Anglican Church). This is sometimes called the "conservative" or "first wave" Reformation. While clearly departing from the current day popular Catholicism (made official at Trent and after the Reformation), it didn't "throw the baby out with the bathwater." It didn't reject things SIMPLY because they were also embraced by Catholics and they were not motivated by a great hatred for the Catholic Church. But then came the "radical Reformation" or the "second wave" that includes the Anabaptists and what Lutherans and Calvinists called "the Enthusiasts" and those who took things into the political realm. Those Radicals were often MORE angry at Lutherans and Anglicans than at Catholism because they saw those first wave Reformers as monergists. They were Revolutionaries..... believing we must destroy and rebuild, they did throw the baby out with the bathwater, lol. Thing is: some of their thinking became popular and is now quite modern, and thus popular - far more now than when they began and were a tiny, mocked, radical group of "wackadodles" ReReformation is, sadly, not infrequently followed by Revolution. Admission: As a conservative, traditional, moneristic Lutheran - I'm at times more confortable with Catholicism than those radical revolutionaries.... but rejoice it doesn't have to be either/or, lol

It's reasonable to see it that way, but I think of the Reformation as a single experience that produced a spectrum of beliefs and practices ranging from the conservatives who came early to the radicals who came later and did indeed oppose the earlier Reformers as ardently as they opposed the Catholic Church. Many of the radicals came to the fore in the 1600s but others were contemporaries of Luther et al, which is why he and Calvin and Cranmer each took their shots at them.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

That is the exact argument being used to teach the legitimacy of infant baptism.

Support of paedobaptism has been argued from scripture and tradition in this thread. I know you accept the legitimacy of the first and reject the second, therefore rejecting paedobaptism. But we do not use the same rubric.

 

[MennoSota]

Support of paedobaptism has been argued from scripture and tradition in this thread. I know you accept the legitimacy of the first and reject the second, therefore rejecting paedobaptism. But we do not use the same rubric.

You incorrectly state that support has been argued from scripture. That is patently false. The truth is that support has been argued from conjecture surrounding scripture, not from what scripture actually says.
Second, Israel had many traditions created by men that Jesus rejected as added weights upon the people. In my opinion, tradition without solid biblical evidence should be rejected. In the case of infant baptism, anyone teaching that infant baptism saves should immediately repent of their false gospel.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

You incorrectly state that support has been argued from scripture. That is patently false. The truth is that support has been argued from conjecture surrounding scripture, not from what scripture actually says.

You've read all 34 pages? I'll wait...

Second, Israel had many traditions created by men that Jesus rejected as added weights upon the people.

You're quite right. So, if I came to your church and wanted to join, but refused to be baptized, could I still join? If not, why?

In my opinion, tradition without solid biblical evidence should be rejected. In the case of infant baptism, anyone teaching that infant baptism saves should immediately repent of their false gospel.

No-one has said baptism saves. Baptism is a means of grace.

 

[MennoSota]

You've read all 34 pages? I'll wait...



You're quite right. So, if I came to your church and wanted to join, but refused to be baptized, could I still join? If not, why?



No-one has said baptism saves. Baptism is a means of grace.

Grace is salvation. Therefore you are saying baptism is a means of salvation. That is not biblical and is therefore untrue.
As for the rest, they are just red herrings.
Our disagreement is this:
You claim that baptism is a means of grace. I claim that there is no teaching anywhere in scripture that makes such a claim. Therefore, your claim is false.

 

[Albion]

In the case of infant baptism, anyone teaching that infant baptism saves should immediately repent of their false gospel.

No-one has said baptism saves.

That's true...and was true the fourteen previous times that that strawman was deployed in the defense of a losing argument.

 

[MennoSota]

That's true...and was true the fourteen previous times that that strawman was deployed in the defense of a losing argument.

Anyone preaching that baptism is a means of grace is actually saying baptism saves.
Do you recant of the teaching that states "baptism is a means of grace"?