Five Reasons Why Babies Should be Baptized...

[atpollard]

Has anybody changed their mind about paedobaptism?

No, I still believe what the Bible says.

While the sort of talking past any scripture I post or points I make is unlikely to EVER convince me of anything, I would point out that an honest discussion on the actual merits of the scripture did convince me to abandon the Baptist teaching against household covenants and to embrace at least the probability that children are included in the 'visible church' as part of the covenant people. However, the substitution of water baptism for OT circumcision is based too strongly upon the interpretations of men reading into the actual scripture and goes against certain explicit commande, like those of Peter in Acts 2. I cannot reject the simple exegesis of what Peter actually said and do theological backflips to read a new covenant 'circumcision' into the verses. There really are no 'smoking gun' verses that prove that any baby was ever baptized in scripture. There are just a few general references to 'households' and at lest one of them clearly has no members too young to hear and understand and believe the Gospel. Proof from silence is not really proof about something as important as a new physical sign of a new covenant. God was VERY clear about circumcision. Why would infant baptism not even be mentioned once?

Would you abandon the sacrament of 'last rights' if someone told you that they had read between the lines and decided that 'last rights' should be given at birth and was not needed again at death? Neither will I abandon the command for each believer to choose for themselves to repent and be baptized (both actions required) in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins and in order that they would recieve the Holy Spirit.

 

[atpollard]

How did I "do" baptism? I wasn't even conscience, I wasn't breathing. What exactly do you insist that I did? True, OTHERS do something FOR me but that's always the case with baptism, no one baptizes themselves. Generally people don't commune self or teach self, either.

Did the hand of God sprinkle water on you, or the hand of man?
People baptize with water.
God baptizes with the Holy Spirit.

Man CANNOT grant the Holy Spirit to another.
God chooses not to sprinkle or immerse most people himself (Israel passing through the Red Sea being a rare exception).

 

[MoreCoffee]

No, I still believe what the Bible says.
...

How lovely. So do I

 

[atpollard]

You keep contradicting yourself.... you've insisted that the word "and" mandates sequence, chronological order (the correct word the Bible should have used being "THEN"), but you also insist that's not the case, but you insist that is the case but it's not the case. When you make up your mind, we can discuss.

AGAIN, the word is "and". What part of that keeps escaping you? It means things are associated. Friend, ANY false teaching can be defended if one just deletes the word that's there and replace it with a completely foreign word that's not there but the person thinks would have been the correct word for the Holy Spirit to inspire. Friend, the word is "AND."

Friend, the following is a true, correct and accurate statement: I got up this morning and visited the bathroom and took a shower and got dressed and made some coffee and read the newspaper and checked my email. ABSOLUTELY correct, accurate and true. But I didn't do them in that order. Did I thus lie? Was I wrong to say "and?" Did I violate simple English grammar? No. It's just that your (sometime) premise is absurd. And by using "and" does it mandate I did them all at the same time or even that one immediately followed the other? No. Of course not. That's completely absurd.

When you make up your mind, let us know.... does "and" mean "and" or did the Bible consistently goof and the Holy Spirit SHOULD have inspired "THEN IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER?"

Peter never wrote, " then immediately thereafter." Friend, he wrote "and." Friend, any position (no matter how absurd) can be defended if one just deletes the word that is there and in its place, in its stead, in lieu of it, substitutes an entirely foreign, different word that one thinks the Holy Spirit SHOULD have inspired if the Holy Spirit was just as informed of this as self is.

I never posted that we should ignore Baptism or Repenting.

I'm stating you are ignoring the word "and." I am disagreeing with your whole premise, your insistence that the word "and" should be ignored and in its place, in its stead, in lieu of it, substituted for it must be the words: "then immediately thereafter" You are ignoring the word that is consistently used.

And yes, there are times when unbaptized people (probably over the mysterious, never-stated age of "X") and they are told to receive baptism. But the Great Commission says we are to baptize (the one administering it being the active ones) and the receivers being in the passive ("many WERE baptized"). The Great Commission is about what Christians are to do for others .... not what unbelievers are to do to/for themselves.

- Josiah
.

[sigh]
"you've insisted that the word "and" mandates sequence, chronological order"
No, I have merely steadfastly maintained that the adult who sprinkled the baby did not obey everything that Peter commanded in Acts 2. 'AND' means that you must do all of the things you were instructed. Peter's instructions were not obeyed.

"It means things are associated."
Yet you are not doing all of the associated things. The point that I make over and over and over.

"It's just that your (sometime) premise is absurd."
Thank you. When you say my premise is absurd, I can feel the Christian love. Are you sure you are my friend? Your words seem somewhat personal and deliberately hurtful. Perhaps Lutherans have a different definition of 'friend' than other denominations.

"I never posted that we should ignore Baptism or Repenting."
No, you just appear to do it. You baptize a baby without any indication of even a desire for repentence in spite of the fact that Peter commands both in the same statement.

"The Great Commission is about what Christians are to do for others .... not what unbelievers are to do to/for themselves."
I agree, but no church I ever attended understood that to include baptizing adult unbelievers who had no desire to repent and be saved ... just in case they later turned out to be among the elect. Yet that is exactly what you do with babies. You baptize them just in case they turn out to be among those drawn to Christ. That is not what Peter commanded in Acts 2.


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.

This is what Peter said. Did you do everything Peter commanded when you were baptized? If not, then by what justification?
Now how about less accusation and more exegesis.
Prove me wrong from scripture, stop just telling me I am wrong.

Your Reformed Baptist friend,
Arthur

 

[atpollard]

Baptizing and teaching (Jesus told the disciples how they were to go out and make more disciples).

Repent and be baptized. Peter told the 3,000 in Acts 2:38. But in the next sentence he assures the crowd that this is for their children too.

The order that is stressed by some here in the thread is NOT stressed in scripture.

I think you might be talking about me.

For the record, I am not stressing the ORDER, I am stressing that TWO THINGS are commanded:
Repent
Be Baptized
... when it comes to Lutheran and Catholic and Presbyterian babies, only one of the two things that were commanded are being done.
Peter also commanded 'every one of you' were to do these things, not 'every one of you are to go and do some of these things to other people'.

He does assure them that it is for their children, too. The exact words are:

Acts 2:38-39 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. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

Note that 'the promise' is for your children. Your children, too, will have an opportunity to "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." (the promise). It does not say to go and baptize your children. Peter could have easily said that if that is what he meant. He did not say that. Notice the part "and to all who are afar off". Should we be baptizing in advance for all who are far off as well. Certainly if a Parent can make the decision for a newborn infant, why not an unborn grandchild or great grandchild or great-great grandchild?

I'll tell you why, because of the last part "as many as the Lord our God will call.". This is what you are ignoring by deciding for your children and baptizing without the "repentence" that is a co-condition (irrespective of order) for the prize "for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit".

The command is not mine. I did not write it. It is not something written by the Baptist Church. God commanded it. Peter said it. Luke recorded it.
My only crime is believing it to be true and to say what it means and mean what it says.
For that I do not apologize.

 

[atpollard]

How lovely. So do I

I am working on learning to keep a sense of humor.
It is not always easy.
God says I need a lot more work in that area. :slap:

 

[MoreCoffee]

...

For the record, I am not stressing the ORDER, I am stressing that TWO THINGS are commanded:
Repent
Be Baptized
... when it comes to .. Catholic .. babies, only one of the two things that were commanded are being done.
Peter also commanded 'every one of you' were to do these things, not 'every one of you are to go and do some of these things to other people'.

...

"repent and be baptised every one of you" is key to your argument, atpollard, yet the passage goes on to say "for the promise is for you and your children". In what sense is the promise for their children?

 

[atpollard]

"repent and be baptised every one of you" is key to your argument, atpollard, yet the passage goes on to say "for the promise is for you and your children". In what sense is the promise for their children?

Already answered:

Acts 2:38-39 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. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

Note that 'the promise' is for your children. Your children, too, will have an opportunity to "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." (the promise). It does not say to go and baptize your children. Peter could have easily said that if that is what he meant. He did not say that. Notice the part "and to all who are afar off". Should we be baptizing in advance for all who are far off as well. Certainly if a Parent can make the decision for a newborn infant, why not an unborn grandchild or great grandchild or great-great grandchild?

 

[atpollard]

"repent and be baptised every one of you" is key to your argument, atpollard, yet the passage goes on to say "for the promise is for you and your children". In what sense is the promise for their children?

Another aspect is that it is "for forgiveness of your sins".
Is there forgiveness of sins without repentence? By baptizing infants, you seem to think so. On what scriptural basis? (Honest question, not an attempt to trick or trap).

I can point to many verses about repentence and forgiveness. Are there verses on forgiveness without repentence? Do Catholic babies receive the Holy Spirit at baptism? (Ignorant of the details of Catholic doctrine on this subtle point).

 

[MoreCoffee]

Already answered:

The reply is an interpretation. It is not what the passage says. It's what you say it means. I do not agree with your interpretation.

Note that 'the promise' is for your children. Your children, too, will have an opportunity to "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." (the promise). It does not say to go and baptize your children. Peter could have easily said that if that is what he meant. He did not say that. Notice the part "and to all who are afar off". Should we be baptizing in advance for all who are far off as well. Certainly if a Parent can make the decision for a newborn infant, why not an unborn grandchild or great grandchild or great-great grandchild?

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
Is there forgiveness of sins without repentence?

"Is there forgiveness of sins without repentence?" That's an interesting question that I have not yet been able to get our Lutheran interlocutors to confront and answer. In the liturgy we (Catholics) say "Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your apostles: I leave you peace, my peace I give you. Look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church, and grant us the peace and unity of your kingdom where you live for ever and ever." In these words (the ones underlined) appeal is made to Christ to look upon the faith of his body/bride/church. Our perspective is communal in many respects where Protestant faith appears to be individual. "Can sins be forgiven without individual repentance?" would be a protestant understanding of the matter of forgiveness while a Catholic understanding is different. Catholics ask "Can sins be forgiven without the Church's repentance?" and the answer for us is "no". No sins can ever be forgiven without the Church's repentance. Every member of the body of Christ participates in the communal repentance of the entire Church. Individual repentance is the normal means by which an individual remains in communion with the body of Christ but it is not the ONLY way that this can happen.

By baptizing infants, you seem to think so. On what scriptural basis? (Honest question, not an attempt to trick or trap).

Honest answer. In our baptismal liturgy the parents and God parents of the child as asked "What do you ask of God's Church for <name of child>.?" and the normal answer is "baptism" but alternatives are available and for your question the alternatives are more instructive.

The celebrant may choose other words for this dialogue. The first reply may be given by someone other than the parents if local custom gives him the right to name the child.

In the second response the parents may use other words, such as, "faith," "the grace of Christ," "entrance into the Church," "eternal life."​

Catholics have a perspective on the meaning of baptism that differs profoundly from the sort of individualism that characterises most forms of Protestantism.

The scriptural basis is the same one you use but we use it with a far more communal understanding so our hermeneutic differs from yours fundamentally.

I can point to many verses about repentence and forgiveness. Are there verses on forgiveness without repentence? Do Catholic babies receive the Holy Spirit at baptism? (Ignorant of the details of Catholic doctrine on this subtle point).

 

[Lamb]

I think you might be talking about me.

For the record, I am not stressing the ORDER, I am stressing that TWO THINGS are commanded:
Repent
Be Baptized
... when it comes to Lutheran and Catholic and Presbyterian babies, only one of the two things that were commanded are being done.
Peter also commanded 'every one of you' were to do these things, not 'every one of you are to go and do some of these things to other people'.

He does assure them that it is for their children, too. The exact words are:

Acts 2:38-39 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. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

Note that 'the promise' is for your children. Your children, too, will have an opportunity to "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." (the promise). It does not say to go and baptize your children. Peter could have easily said that if that is what he meant. He did not say that. Notice the part "and to all who are afar off". Should we be baptizing in advance for all who are far off as well. Certainly if a Parent can make the decision for a newborn infant, why not an unborn grandchild or great grandchild or great-great grandchild?

I'll tell you why, because of the last part "as many as the Lord our God will call.". This is what you are ignoring by deciding for your children and baptizing without the "repentence" that is a co-condition (irrespective of order) for the prize "for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit".

The command is not mine. I did not write it. It is not something written by the Baptist Church. God commanded it. Peter said it. Luke recorded it.
My only crime is believing it to be true and to say what it means and mean what it says.
For that I do not apologize.

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.

 

[Lamb]

Another aspect is that it is "for forgiveness of your sins".
Is there forgiveness of sins without repentence? By baptizing infants, you seem to think so. On what scriptural basis? (Honest question, not an attempt to trick or trap).

I can point to many verses about repentence and forgiveness. Are there verses on forgiveness without repentence? Do Catholic babies receive the Holy Spirit at baptism? (Ignorant of the details of Catholic doctrine on this subtle point).

Were your sins forgiven at the cross? All of mine were. Scriptures tell me so.

The Holy Spirit turned me (repentance) and gave me faith (salvation by grace through faith....connected to the cross of course since faith grasps onto the Savior and forgiveness of sins) so that I may believe and have eternal life.

Forgiveness of sins happened before I was born. Jesus did that.

 

[Lamb]

"Is there forgiveness of sins without repentence?" That's an interesting question that I have not yet been able to get our Lutheran interlocutors to confront and answer.

Is there repentance without the Holy Spirit giving it as a gift?

Answer. NO.

 

[Josiah]

Is there repentance without the Holy Spirit giving it as a gift? Answer. NO.

I agree....


Repentance is a spiritual act since it requires being spiritually alive and faith in God and especially God's mercy. When one is DEAD (and thus unable to do ANYTHING), when one doesn't believe God exists and that this non-existent "god" is NOT merciful and that stating ANYTHING to this non-existent "god" who is not merciful, is well, absurd and irrelevant - that's not repentance. A spiritual DEAD person may feel remorse (a purely emotional thing that has NOTHING to do with God) - heck, your dog or cat feels remorse - but that's not repentance.


But the fallacy of all this is the deleting the consistent word "and" that is in the texts and in place of it, in lieu of it, in stead of it, substituting an entirely foreign word NOT in the text, the word "THEN." The worse heresies, the most absurd and crazy of positions can be supported by Scripture if the proponent just deletes the words in the text and substitutes instead entirely different words that self insists the Holy Spirit would have inspired if the Holy Spirit had understood the situation as well as self does. The whole premise that FIRST one must repent is built on this false premise that the Bible SHOULD have said "then" in stead of the word it actually consistently used.



Pax Christi


- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

Did the hand of God sprinkle water on you, or the hand of man?

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.

People baptize with water.
God baptizes with the Holy Spirit.

I disagree with your absolute division (although that's beyond the scope of this thread). I stand with Calvinists who affirm the "Means of Grace", that God typically does His salvic and sanctifiying work via MEANS. When a Reformed minister preaches the Gospel, yes - a MAN is doing that, yes WORDS are involved, but Calvinists and Lutherans believe that GOD is using those means ("tools in the hands of the carpenter" as Luther put it) so that GOD is working in and through those words. The point that a man is saying them is irrelevant.

Man CANNOT grant the Holy Spirit to another.

Correct. Only GOD can give faith. What I disagree with is your supposed "logical" extension that ERGO 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 gospel sermons. But actually, what you seem to be promoting is a point Lutherans AND Calvinists both equally disagree with. We think 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.



Back to the issue of this thread....



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Is there repentance without the Holy Spirit giving it as a gift?

Answer. NO.

No one ought to expect forgiveness without repentance.

 

[Josiah]

No one ought to expect forgiveness without repentance.

So, when Jesus looked down at his executioners and said one of the Seven Last Words of the Cross, "Father forgive THEM" Jesus was actually either wasting His time or misleading generations? OR do you believe that at that moment, His excutioners had converted to Christianity and were looking to Jesus as the Savior, the Redeemer in whom alone we have forgiveness and were stopping the execution and removing Him from the Cross? And friend, the verb "forgive" is in the present tense. It's not conditional or future.


I don't disagree that from OUR perspective, faith produces repentance so that the two are associated. I don't even disagree that CHRISTIANS are not commanded to forgive where there is no repentance (although it happens zillions of times a day and Christians usually hold up those who do that in great esteem). I just disagree with your point that God cannot forgive unless there is repentance. I don't think God is forbidden to do much.

In any case, I don't agree that child baptism is prohibited because they "can't" repent beforehand. I honestly have NO CLUE what "abilities" God can and cannot give based exclusively on age, but I don't generally agree with the premise that God is rendered impotent if one is under the (every mysterious, never stated) age of X. I think God can give whatever He wants to give to whomever He wants to give it (I'm learning that evidently I have a stronger view of the Soverignty of God than Calvinists have - shocker to me). Frankly, I have a hard time with any theological premise based entirely on what God cannot do.


Soli Deo Gloria



- Josiah

 

[Lamb]

No one ought to expect forgiveness without repentance.

Wasn't forgiveness won at the cross already?

We benefit from the cross by receiving the forgiveness of sins won when the Holy Spirit turns us to Him in repentance and gives us the gift of faith in order to believe. Then we have eternal life. That's the Good News. Christ died and our sins are forgiven. We receive the benefits because God delivers it to us.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I wonder if you see what I typed?

"No one ought to expect forgiveness without repentance."