Infant Baptism

[MoreCoffee]

... ? there is equally no evidence in scripture that it was the norm to immerse babies in baptism ...

That's right, there's no evidence in holy scripture that anybody was submerged in baptism.

 

[Pedrito]

TurtleHair in Post #121 said:

How about those who don't understand the benefits of baptism read Lammchen's post 97 instead of asking? I mean that was 2 pages ago but it shows you all ignore scripture when it's in front of you as provided. If you keep asking it will be referred to again and again. The benefits to infants are the same as adults.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's see what Lämmchen said. In the post referred to, Lämmchen gave the following references under the heading of “What Blessings Do We Receive In Baptism?”:

• 1 Peter 3:20-21,
• Colossians 2:11-12 which mentions “in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God",
• Romans 6:3-10 which states “For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection”,
• a quote from Dr. Lowell Green which says baptism “is incorporation into the body of the risen and ascended Savior” without any mention of faith,
• Galatians 3:27,
• Ephesians 5:26,
• Titus 3:5,
• 1 Corinthians 12:13,
• 1 Corinthians 6:11,
• Acts 22:16,
• Acts 2:37-39,
• Mark 16:16 "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

In fact, none of those verses gives any support for infant baptism. The last (Mark 16:16) actually invalidates the statement by Dr. Green. Unless, that is, infants which have been “incorporation into the body of the risen and ascended Savior” are later torn out again if they do not exhibit the required faith in God and His Son. Or does a baptised baby even need any follow-up faith? Is the baptism alone of an infant enough to ensure its salvation? Is that the context in which Romans 6:3-10 was quoted?

Would someone please enlighten me?


Continued ...

 

[Pedrito]

… Continued


In the former post we looked at the references and a comment from Lämmchen under the heading of “What Blessings Do We Receive In Baptism?”

She followed that with verses under the heading of “Who Is To Be Baptised?”:
Matthew 28:19-20, Mark 16:15-16, and Acts 2:37-39.

None of those references can be honestly used to support the baptism of infants. In fact, Mark 16:16 has already been shown to refute the idea.

And therefore the statement “Note: The burden of proof lies on those who would choose to deny God’s gift of Baptism to an entire class of people.” is shown to be the polar opposite of reality.


Continued ...

 

[Pedrito]

… Continued


Lämmchen then offered, under the heading “Are There Any Indications In The Bible That Infants Were Baptised?”:
Colossians 2:11-12, Acts 2:37-39, Acts 16:14-15, Acts 16:33

With respect to Colossians 2:11-12, Lämmchen stated:

Note: Circumcision was a rite associated almost exclusively with infants (eight days old). It would be odd to refer to Baptism as the “circumcision of Christ” if Baptism of infants was to be forbidden while circumcision was given almost exclusively to infants. (Note also that infants did receive Jewish proselyte baptism.)

As Lämmchen probably already knew, and if not, is being informed now, Paul was referring to circumcision of the heart, as specifically mentioned in Romans 2:29, a term that was familiar to the Jews, and which pertained to adults only:

Deuteronomy 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
Deuteronomy 30:6 6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
Jeremiah 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.

The “circumcision of Christ” is simply another way of describing “the circumcision made without hands”, the circumcision of the heart required for a true relationship with God.

Continued ...

 

[Pedrito]

… Continued


And what of “The benefits to infants are the same as adults.”?

My questions relating to the specifics of that idea have remained pointedly unanswered.

From Post #116 (Page 12):

I request a dual explanation:
1. The benefit that infant baptism has for the child both then and in adulthood, if that person never comes to valid faith in the saving work of Christ;
2. The benefit that infant baptism has for the child both then and in adulthood, if that person actually does come to valid faith in the saving work of Christ.

And from Post #15 on Page 2 of the thread “Do you believe God works through means?":

I think what Readers in general would like to know is, if God really does “work” through the “means” of “baptism” (which in Lutheran terms I understand includes the baptism of infants) and “the Lord's supper”, what exactly does He do in each case?

1. What does God actually do to or for an infant when it is baptised, that gives that infant advantage over an infant that is not baptised?

2. What does God actually do for a person who takes part in “the Lord's supper” in the Lutheran context, that He does not do for a person taking part in a related ceremony in a non-Lutheran church?

3. What does God actually do for a person who takes part in “the Lord's supper” in the Lutheran context, that He does not do for a person who belongs to a church that does not have an equivalent in its religious repertoire (e.g. the Salvation Army)?

Sensible, direct answers to each of the above five questions individually, are requested. Those answers if given, would help those among us who may not have a ritualistic background, to understand with precision the advantages that the Lutheran (for instance) approach offers.

Isn't that what the more ritualistic posters in this thread really want?


Without the responsible handling of God's Holy Word, there can be no truth.


(The last three questions can be answered in the "through means" thread if that is deemed more appropriate than here.)

 

[Josiah]

She followed that with verses under the heading of “Who Is To Be Baptised?”:
Matthew 28:19-20, Mark 16:15-16, and Acts 2:37-39.

None of those references can be honestly used to support the baptism of infants. In fact, Mark 16:16 has already been shown to refute the idea.

Wrong.

Not one of these verses states, "Thou art forbidden to baptize those under the age of 'X'!"

Yes.... SOME of the examples of the giving of baptism that happen to be recorded in the pages of the New Testament are of persons who appear to be adults and believers. Of course, not all show that (so that it CANNOT be said that all the examples are of adult believers; that simply is a falsehood). But so what? NO ONE here believes or accepts that we can do only what is exampled in the pages of the NT (we couldn't be posting on the internet if that was the case). There is not a congregation on the planet Earth today that only does what is exampled in the pages of the NT so there's not a single congregation on the planet Earth that accepts that rubric, that argument. If you don't accept the rubric, why should anyone else? If you don't believe we are limited to doing what is exampled, why use that as the foundational premise for this new prohibition?


Note: The burden of proof lies on those who would choose to deny God’s gift of Baptism to an entire class of people. The Bible says to do it. If you are going to NOT do that, I think you need something pretty solid to justify that.

And it's interesting.... Baptism and teaching usually are linked, but the arguments against one never seem to be applied to the other. Is it wrong to sing Bible songs to an infant? Is it wrong to teach those under this mysterious (and never stated) age of X? Is it a violation of Scripture to teach someone the Gospel unless they first gave their specific consent for such or have celebrated this magical X birthday or already believe? Why, I've been accosted by "evangelical" preachers on street corners etc. WITHOUT my consent; I've been mailed all kinds of stuff by "evangelical" churches without my consent and with no knowledge of whether those here have celebrated their "X" birthday and have repented and have said the sinner's prayer - they just mail this to ALL regardless of all the prohibitions they now put on baptism.

And if we can't do anything not exampled in the NT, why do "Evangelical" churches often have websites, powerpoint, youth pastors, baptism tanks? Why do they use electricity, the internet? Why do they pass around grape juice and little cut up Weber's bread in communion? Why do they give communion only on some Sundays? Why do they use GENTILES to administer baptism (it seems those who gave it in the NT were Hebrews)? Why do they baptize Americans? Asians? NONE of those things are exampled in the NT. Since they themselves do NOT believe we are limited to examples of the NT, why insist we are limited to examples in the NT? Quite silly.

These very few Christians in the past 500 years seem HIGHLY selective of the application of their new prohibition. When the Bible says to LOVE, they don't scream, "But ONLY if they are over the age of X." "But ONLY if they first consent!" "But ONLY if they have said 'the sinner's prayer'!" "But ONLY to those who trace their heritage to those we see loved in the NT!" When the Bible says to TEACH, they don't scream "But ONLY if they are over the age of X and ONLY if they first consent to it and only if they are already believers and only if they live in countries mentioned in the NT." Odd.


So far, we've seen NOTHING to support this new (only 25% of the history of Christianity), tiny (perhaps no more than 10% of Christians) tradition of withholding many from baptism (but not teaching or loving or any other command). Just odd stuff they quickly point out they don't believe, accept or apply.




.

 

[TurtleHare]

This caught my eye because the connection of baptism to circumcision is proof that an infant doesn't have to wait to make a decison because the infants being circumcized didn't need to give consent or make a decision to follow the Lord. Think of this that God demanded that the Hebrews circumcize babies, and I know you're trying to go off on some tangent about circumcision of the heart but that is just a tangent, the fact of the matter is that we are told in the Old Testament about circumcision. We now have baptism given to us from God and people prevent babies from receving it.

… Continued


Lämmchen then offered, under the heading “Are There Any Indications In The Bible That Infants Were Baptised?”:
Colossians 2:11-12, Acts 2:37-39, Acts 16:14-15, Acts 16:33

With respect to Colossians 2:11-12, Lämmchen stated:


As Lämmchen probably already knew, and if not, is being informed now, Paul was referring to circumcision of the heart, as specifically mentioned in Romans 2:29, a term that was familiar to the Jews, and which pertained to adults only:

The “circumcision of Christ” is simply another way of describing “the circumcision made without hands”, the circumcision of the heart required for a true relationship with God.

Continued ...

 

[Josiah]

This caught my eye because the connection of baptism to circumcision is proof that an infant doesn't have to wait to make a decison because the infants being circumcized didn't need to give consent or make a decision to follow the Lord. Think of this that God demanded that the Hebrews circumcize babies, and I know you're trying to go off on some tangent about circumcision of the heart but that is just a tangent, the fact of the matter is that we are told in the Old Testament about circumcision. We now have baptism given to us from God and people prevent babies from receving it.

This gets to the "we're forbidden to do something without prior consent" argument. A particularly silly one. Of course, little boys who are eight days old don't specifically CONSENT to being circumcised - and yet God orders it. Thus, it is just silly to insist that we are forbidden to give or do something (even to infants) without THEIR prior consent. But then, the same ones who use this (entirely unbiblical!) argument also take their children to the doctor without their consent, send their children to school without their child's consent, give their boys a hair cut without the boys prior consent.... they teach people and preach on street corners and mail stuff and hand out flyers to people without their prior consent.... so here, too, the very ones insisting on this rubic document that they themselves reject it. Same goes for the "can't do anything unless it's illustrated in the NT" argument - they DOCUMENT that THEY reject that rubric. Why should be accept arguments THEY so powerfully reject?




.

 

[Lamb]

Pedrito, I will try to respond later today. Thanks for your patience!

 

[Lamb]

Let's see what Lämmchen said. In the post referred to, Lämmchen gave the following references under the heading of “What Blessings Do We Receive In Baptism?”:

• 1 Peter 3:20-21,
• Colossians 2:11-12 which mentions “in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God",
• Romans 6:3-10 which states “For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection”,
• a quote from Dr. Lowell Green which says baptism “is incorporation into the body of the risen and ascended Savior” without any mention of faith,
• Galatians 3:27,
• Ephesians 5:26,
• Titus 3:5,
• 1 Corinthians 12:13,
• 1 Corinthians 6:11,
• Acts 22:16,
• Acts 2:37-39,
• Mark 16:16 "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

In fact, none of those verses gives any support for infant baptism. The last (Mark 16:16) actually invalidates the statement by Dr. Green. Unless, that is, infants which have been “incorporation into the body of the risen and ascended Savior” are later torn out again if they do not exhibit the required faith in God and His Son. Or does a baptised baby even need any follow-up faith? Is the baptism alone of an infant enough to ensure its salvation? Is that the context in which Romans 6:3-10 was quoted?

Would someone please enlighten me?


Continued ...

Baptism for infants is the same for adults...it's God's Word with the water and giving the benefits of the cross to us. His Word is what is prominent in baptism, yet how come people are stuck on water?

What happens at baptism? God's Word follows through on promises made. That's what those scripture verses point to. When you deny God's Word acting in baptism then of course you can only think that it's you doing something. Yet, what do you do? It's God who gave us baptism it's God who does the work. God can do it to infants probably easier than sinful man who puts up more of a fight to reject the Gospel.

 

[Lamb]

Pedrito asked about faith of an infant after baptism. Well, scripture tells us that man can fall away from faith. That should answer your question. Any person brought to faith can fall. That's what the Law from scripture tells us.

Pedrito wants the following answered:
I request a dual explanation:
1. The benefit that infant baptism has for the child both then and in adulthood, if that person never comes to valid faith in the saving work of Christ;
2. The benefit that infant baptism has for the child both then and in adulthood, if that person actually does come to valid faith in the saving work of Christ.

1) Baptism contains God's Word in with the waters and we know it's God's Word that brings man to faith. Saving faith.
2) Baptism brings the forgiveness of sins that was won at the cross directly (because God says so and HE doesn't lie). Baptism gives the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Pedrito also wants to know:
1. What does God actually do to or for an infant when it is baptised, that gives that infant advantage over an infant that is not baptised?
2. What does God actually do for a person who takes part in “the Lord's supper” in the Lutheran context, that He does not do for a person taking part in a related ceremony in a non-Lutheran church?
3. What does God actually do for a person who takes part in “the Lord's supper” in the Lutheran context, that He does not do for a person who belongs to a church that does not have an equivalent in its religious repertoire (e.g. the Salvation Army)?

1) Baptism gives faith (God's Word is with the waters) and the forgiveness of sins won at the cross.
2) & 3) Please start a new thread. Thanks.

 

[Alithis]

That's right, there's no evidence in holy scripture that anybody was submerged in baptism.

oh how much more serpentine can you get with your twisting an turning? you know very well that in the significance and symbol of burial one is not sprinkled . but hey you wouldn't want to impose the word of God over the word of rome would you .

 

[Alithis]

This caught my eye because the connection of baptism to circumcision is proof that an infant doesn't have to wait to make a decison because the infants being circumcized didn't need to give consent or make a decision to follow the Lord. Think of this that God demanded that the Hebrews circumcize babies, and I know you're trying to go off on some tangent about circumcision of the heart but that is just a tangent, the fact of the matter is that we are told in the Old Testament about circumcision. We now have baptism given to us from God and people prevent babies from receving it.

nice try But....

circumcision was an act of law .. not requiring faith . hence you can circumcise a baby ..
your point only reinforces that baptizing babies is a nice sentiment ..but of no eternal value . for they must still do so on thier own faith later .

 

[MoreCoffee]

... you know very well that in the significance and symbol of burial one is not sprinkled ...

In Judea when Jesus walked the Earth burial was being placed in a tomb without any dirt being thrown on top. Just roll the stone away and walk in and out after the resurrection. Do you remember the story of Lazarus, brother of Mary and Martha? He was placed in his tomb and when the Lord Jesus Christ called to him he came out of it without being covered by dirt. He was however, covered in burial cloth. Nothing to suggest submersion in that. But it appears you're thinking of Romans 6. That passage says:

What should we say then? Should we remain in sin so that grace may be given the more fully? Out of the question! We have died to sin; how could we go on living in it? You cannot have forgotten that all of us, when we were baptised into Christ Jesus, were baptised into his death. So by our baptism into his death we were buried with him, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the Father's glorious power, we too should begin living a new life. If we have been joined to him by dying a death like his, so we shall be by a resurrection like his; realising that our former self was crucified with him, so that the self which belonged to sin should be destroyed and we should be freed from the slavery of sin.
(Romans 6:1-6)
​

No submersion in that passage is there? But there is an explanation of baptism in it. The passages teaches that in baptism one is united to Christ. It teaches that one dies and rises with Christ when baptised. That is nothing like the anaemic explanation you've given in your posts. You say baptism is a public testimony about your commitment to faith in Jesus Christ but saint Paul says it is death and resurrection with Christ. It's the birth from above that Jesus mentions in the gospel according to saint John saying:

There was one of the Pharisees called Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews, who came to Jesus by night and said, 'Rabbi, we know that you have come from God as a teacher; for no one could perform the signs that you do unless God were with him.' Jesus answered: In all truth I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above. Nicodemus said, 'How can anyone who is already old be born? Is it possible to go back into the womb again and be born?' Jesus replied: In all truth I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born through water and the Spirit; what is born of human nature is human; what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be surprised when I say: You must be born from above. The wind blows where it pleases; you can hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.
(John 3:1-8)
​

The reason for baptising infants is that infants need to be born from above just as much as grown up people do. And Jesus teaches that it is by baptism that one is born from above.

 

[Alithis]

In Judea when Jesus walked the Earth burial was being placed in a tomb without any dirt being thrown on top. Just roll the stone away and walk in and out after the resurrection. Do you remember the story of Lazarus, brother of Mary and Martha? He was placed in his tomb and when the Lord Jesus Christ called to him he came out of it without being covered by dirt. He was however, covered in burial cloth. Nothing to suggest submersion in that. But it appears you're thinking of Romans 6. That passage says:

What should we say then? Should we remain in sin so that grace may be given the more fully? Out of the question! We have died to sin; how could we go on living in it? You cannot have forgotten that all of us, when we were baptised into Christ Jesus, were baptised into his death. So by our baptism into his death we were buried with him, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the Father's glorious power, we too should begin living a new life. If we have been joined to him by dying a death like his, so we shall be by a resurrection like his; realising that our former self was crucified with him, so that the self which belonged to sin should be destroyed and we should be freed from the slavery of sin.
(Romans 6:1-6)
​

No submersion in that passage is there? But there is an explanation of baptism in it. The passages teaches that in baptism one is united to Christ. It teaches that one dies and rises with Christ when baptised. That is nothing like the anaemic explanation you've given in your posts. You say baptism is a public testimony about your commitment to faith in Jesus Christ but saint Paul says it is death and resurrection with Christ. It's the birth from above that Jesus mentions in the gospel according to saint John saying:

There was one of the Pharisees called Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews, who came to Jesus by night and said, 'Rabbi, we know that you have come from God as a teacher; for no one could perform the signs that you do unless God were with him.' Jesus answered: In all truth I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above. Nicodemus said, 'How can anyone who is already old be born? Is it possible to go back into the womb again and be born?' Jesus replied: In all truth I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born through water and the Spirit; what is born of human nature is human; what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be surprised when I say: You must be born from above. The wind blows where it pleases; you can hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.
(John 3:1-8)
​

The reason for baptising infants is that infants need to be born from above just as much as grown up people do. And Jesus teaches that it is by baptism that one is born from above.

Tomb yes... Under the earth.burial.
The rest of your argument was a contradiction of your own point. Baptism is not sprinkling.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Tomb yes... Under the earth.burial.
The rest of your argument was a contradiction of your own point. Baptism is not sprinkling.

And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.
(Numbers 8:7 KJV)

Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
(Ezekiel 36:25 KJV)

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
(Acts 22:16 KJV)

if a = b and b = c then a = c

riest2:

 

[psalms 91]

And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.
(Numbers 8:7 KJV)

Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
(Ezekiel 36:25 KJV)

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
(Acts 22:16 KJV)

if a = b and b = c then a = c

riest2:

wash and sprinkle are two different words and your logic is flawed and does not make wash equal sprinkle

 

[MoreCoffee]

wash and sprinkle are two different words and your logic is flawed and does not make wash equal sprinkle

My shower washes me by sprinkling me with clean water

 

[psalms 91]

My shower washes me by sprinkling me with clean water

lol I love it

 

[MoreCoffee]

lol I love it

I am glad that you still have some humour left

This thread is much too long and the matter has been debated far too much but it is fun to amuse a brother.

Wash away thy sins, say the scriptures but one does not assume that a bath or a shower will achieve this end. Even a very deep and lengthy submersion will not avail. But a little sprinkle of holy water in baptism will.

Meanwhile the eleven disciples set out for Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had arranged to meet them. When they saw him they fell down before him, though some hesitated. Jesus came up and spoke to them. He said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you. And look, I am with you always; yes, to the end of time.'
(Matthew 28:16-20)