Infant Baptism

[Colabomb]

I am not saying that I have rejected Infant Baptism, I am just questioning.

Isn't Repentance and Baptism often connected in Scripture?

In Christ!
John ><>

[LilLamb219]

Yes, repentance and baptism are connected...and both are gifts from God. Where were you going with this question?

[LutherNut]

I am not saying that I have rejected Infant Baptism, I am just questioning.

Isn't Repentance and Baptism often connected in Scripture?

In Christ!
John ><>

S' up dude?

Yes, they are connected, but one is not a prerequisite for the other.


...oh, and how can I get one of those neat cartoon characters?

[Jim47]

I am not saying that I have rejected Infant Baptism, I am just questioning.

Isn't Repentance and Baptism often connected in Scripture?

In Christ!
John ><>

Hi John

I'm not sure if I can help you but I will try.

Some years back I had an urge to start doing some pretty good Bible study. When you first really get into Bible study and really dig into the "whole" Bible, you will find quite a few scriptures that are eaither very hard to understand or hard to accpet. While I admit that I am still a youngster as far as Bible knowledge goes, I did discover one very important thing. If at any point you resolve to "not accpet" God's Word and what it says concerning anything, even the smallest thing, how long do you think it would take Satan to start picking apart even more scripture and making it unacceptable for you? I figured that out for me it would take no time at all, and I resolved to accpet everything written in the Bible 100%, because my fear was of God taking His Word away from me because if my stubborn refusal to believe it.

Now maybe another thing that will help you that my Pastor recently taught me, use the clearly understandable scriptures to help you better understand those that are not so easy to understand. With that in mind:

If Jesus Himself was baptized, although He never comitted a sin and was born free from sin, shouldn't we heed the scriptures all the more?

Mt 3:13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"

Mt 3:15 Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented.

Mt 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."


Mk 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Should we tempt God by our human reason and deny His Word?

[C.F.W. Walther]

plagerized:

The Concise Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker, 1991) defines the "age of accountability" as follows: "The stage of life at which moral consciousness emerges and with it responsibility for conduct before God" [emphasis added]. Lutherans recognize, of course, that as children grow they develop a greater awareness of what is right and wrong as they are instructed in the teachings of God's Word. But it is quite another matter to hold that a human being does not become responsible before God until he or she reaches a certain level of moral discernment. Such a view is clearly contrary to the scriptural teaching that all human beings are conceived and born in sin, and are, in the words of St. Paul, "by nature children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3).That is to say, all human beings are "under the power of sin," a condition made clear by the Law of God which holds the whole world "accountable to God" (Rom. 3:19). Thus, the Scriptures are not merely silent about some "age of accountability" as defined above, but they directly contradict such a teaching.

Children are baptized for the same reason adults are baptized—
because of the command and promise of God.What is
promised in Baptism is given to all who receive it; therefore,
infants and young children also have the promise of God.They,
too, are made children of God.They, too, are included in the
words “all nations”(Matt.28:19). Jesus specifically invites little
children to come to Him (Luke 18:15–17).But most important,
as sinners,infants need what Baptism gives.
By His word,God created all that is seen and unseen.By
His word,our Lord Christ called a dead man from the tomb
(John 11:43–44).The unborn child,John the Baptist,leaped in
his mother’s womb when he heard the word of God (Luke
1:41–44).Why is there any doubt that in and through the Word
and the promise of Baptism,God works a similar gift of faith
in the infant? If we misunderstand Baptism to be our work,
then we will always cast doubt on it.When we recognize that it
is not our work,but God’s gracious promise and work,we realize
that infants are to be baptized and receive the treasures
offered in and through Baptism.
Sadly, there are individuals and church bodies that deny
Baptism to young children and infants.They do not believe
that these little ones need what Holy Baptism gives.They do
not believe what the Bible teaches so clearly,namely,that God
saves us through Baptism.As a result of these false teachings,
they deny both to themselves and to others the power,blessing
and comfort of Holy Baptism.That is tragic, for it is a most
serious offense against God to deny what He plainly declares in
His Word: “The promise is for you and your children”(Acts
2:39) and “Baptism now saves you”(1 Peter 3:21).
Conclusion
“We see what a great and excellent thing Baptism is,which
snatches us from the jaws of the devil and makes God our
own,overcomes and takes away sin and daily strengthens the
new man.It always remains until we pass from this present
misery to eternal glory”(Large Catechism).
The meaning, power and promise of Holy Baptism rest
entirely on the One who lived perfectly in our place and who
suffered and died as the sacrificial ransom for the sins of the
world.He rose victorious over death and the grave. In Holy
Baptism,we receive all the blessings of Christ’s atoning sacrifice.
Thank God for His gift of Holy Baptism!

[KagomeShuko]

S' up dude?



...oh, and how can I get one of those neat cartoon characters?

that is in the "Armor." You have to "buy" things with your blessings. You have to "buy" your body, hair, eyes, shoes, clothes (shirts and pants/shorts). . .and then you have to equip them all, too.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[filosofer]

To set a different tone on this: Is this how we read the texts?

Romans 3:23

Romans 3:10

Matthew 28:18-20

John 20:31

Seems that part of the problem with "age of accountability" is that it equates sin with outward acts and faith with head knowledge. What about sin as a condition of being descendants of Adam (Romans 5:12)? ... Or does the text read: "... and so sin entered into the whole world for those over the age of accountability"? BTW, when do you have to teach children to do things wrong?

Notice in Luke 18:15-18, Jesus says about the "babies" that are brought to him: "Permit the children to come to me... for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."

The logical extension of "children automatically being saved before the age of accountability" is that we hope the child dies prior to reaching the age of accountbility, at least the salvation rate would be 100%.

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

"age of accountability is all over the NT ;)


Matt. 28:19-20
[Jesus said:] “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations over the age of accountability, baptizing those who are over the age of accountability in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching those over the age of accountability to observe all that I commanded you who are over the age of accountability; and lo, I am with you who are over the age of accountability always, even to the end of the age.”

But these (signs) have been written that you who are over the age of accountability may believe... John 20:31

Romans 3:10
... as it is written, There is none over the age of accountability who is righteous, no not even one;

Romans 3:23
for all over the age of accountability have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Ephesians 2:4-5
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we who were over the age of accountability were dead in our transgressions, made us who were over the age of accountability alive together with Christ (by grace you over the age of accountability have been saved)

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

... yep, no doubt about, the Bible is very clear on the age of accountability. ;) :D

[LutherNut]

that is in the "Armor." You have to "buy" things with your blessings. You have to "buy" your body, hair, eyes, shoes, clothes (shirts and pants/shorts). . .and then you have to equip them all, too.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

I owe somebody a big "THANX" for the blessings!

Now, what to do about my cartoon dude...:scratch:

[LutherNut]

I owe somebody a big "THANX" for the blessings!

Now, what to do about my cartoon dude...:scratch:

Ha! He looks like I did when I was about 12!!! ^_^ ^_^

[Colabomb]

I understand that Baptism is for the remission of sins, that is scriptural.

My question is, does a baptism that lacks faith really a Baptism?

I am not trying to argue here, but if infant baptism is right, all my thoughts against it will fall, and I am trying to see if they do.

[ByzantineDixie]

I understand that Baptism is for the remission of sins, that is scriptural.

My question is, does a baptism that lacks faith really a Baptism?

I think the answer to this concern becomes easier once one understands what Baptism is. (More about Baptism here.) (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8037785&postcount=5) But to get to the point...Baptism is when we are filled with the Holy Spirit and with Him comes faith. (You would agree that it is impossible to be filled with the Holy Spirit and to not have faith, right?) So your concern about a baby who has no faith...no problem, faith comes to the baby in Baptism by the Holy Spirit.

Now, the Holy Spirit is not limited to the waters of Baptism! Often the Spirit will bring faith to an adult who has never been baptised. When this happens, Baptism is also performed because it is scriptural, because it does join the new Christian to Christ and the church.

I am not trying to argue here, but if infant baptism is right, all my thoughts against it will fall, and I am trying to see if they do.

I thought the Anglicans did infant Baptism, too? Is this a new concern of yours?

One thing that may help is that infant Baptism has been practiced in the Church since her origins. The novel doctrine of being rebaptized (if one was baptized as an infant) and prohibiting infant baptism began with...oh..someone help me out here....I can remember the story where each of the men got up slowly and were re-baptized...I am thinking it was Zwingli? or Smyth? Either way...1500 years of church history had passed before the believer's baptism was practiced by one of the sects.

Don't worry...sometimes we have to wrestle with things to know what to believe and where to believe it.

OH...and read this (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8340025&postcount=40)...it may also help.

[Jim47]

[QUOTE=Colabomb]
My question is, does a baptism that lacks faith really a Baptism?

QUOTE]

Jn 1:33 I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’

Jn 1:34 I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."

1Co 6:19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?

*** 3:4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.



The scriptures tell us that we will be baptzied with The Holy Spirit, and we recieve faith as a free gift through The Holy Spirit. That is why we baptize infants, because they too are born into sin just as we all are and are in need of forgiveness just as we do. Now the important part to understand, God The Holy Spirit is not limited in the way we humans are, for He can work faith in the heart of a small child or a person at any age. Our salvation is not dependant upon human reason or understanding, but upon God's grace.

When we as humans say that a child should not be baptzied until a certain age has been reached, we are as much as saying to The Holy Spirit, "Now don't you go and create faith in that little childs heart, cause he is just to young to understand" Man is always trying to seek what his knowledge and understanding make sence to him, instead we should be looking to what God has said and heed His Words.

Why was Abraham credited righteousness? Because he believed, and God has told us that little children can also believe, although this seems impossible for us, nothing is impossible for God.

[Colabomb]

I think the answer to this concern becomes easier once one understands what Baptism is. (More about Baptism here.) (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8037785&postcount=5) But to get to the point...Baptism is when we are filled with the Holy Spirit and with Him comes faith. (You would agree that it is impossible to be filled with the Holy Spirit and to not have faith, right?) So your concern about a baby who has no faith...no problem, faith comes to the baby in Baptism by the Holy Spirit.

Now, the Holy Spirit is not limited to the waters of Baptism! Often the Spirit will bring faith to an adult who has never been baptised. When this happens, Baptism is also performed because it is scriptural, because it does join the new Christian to Christ and the church.



I thought the Anglicans did infant Baptism, too? Is this a new concern of yours?

One thing that may help is that infant Baptism has been practiced in the Church since her origins. The novel doctrine of being rebaptized (if one was baptized as an infant) and prohibiting infant baptism began with...oh..someone help me out here....I can remember the story where each of the men got up slowly and were re-baptized...I am thinking it was Zwingli? or Smyth? Either way...1500 years of church history had passed before the believer's baptism was practiced by one of the sects.

Don't worry...sometimes we have to wrestle with things to know what to believe and where to believe it.

OH...and read this (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8340025&postcount=40)...it may also help.
Anglicanism does practice Paedobaptism, but I accepted it based on Tradition, not scripture.

My concern, is does the practice line up with God's word.

yes, I believe that no man may have faith unless prompted by the Holy Ghost.

[ByzantineDixie]

Anglicanism does practice Paedobaptism, but I accepted it based on Tradition, not scripture.

My concern, is does the practice line up with God's word.

yes, I believe that no man may have faith unless prompted by the Holy Ghost.

Luther did not use Scripture to defend infant baptism...he used Tradition--which did not conflict with Scripture.

But I am certain there are a few sola scriptura Lutherans on this forum who can craft a clever scriptural argument.

For me...I am happy with Tradition not in conflict with Scripture.

Pax-----R

[Colabomb]

Luther did not use Scripture to defend infant baptism...he used Tradition--which did not conflict with Scripture.

But I am certain there are a few sola scriptura Lutherans on this forum who can craft a clever scriptural argument.

For me...I am happy with Tradition not in conflict with Scripture.

Pax-----R
The argument from some is (and I am not saying I agree, I am playing devil's Advocate) that it is contrary to scripture.

It is also said that where scripture is silent, we should be silent also.

What do you say about this?

[SPALATIN]

One thing that may help is that infant Baptism has been practiced in the Church since her origins. The novel doctrine of being rebaptized (if one was baptized as an infant) and prohibiting infant baptism began with...oh..someone help me out here....I can remember the story where each of the men got up slowly and were re-baptized...I am thinking it was Zwingli? or Smyth? Either way...1500 years of church history had passed before the believer's baptism was practiced by one of the sects.




Rose,

I don't believe it was Zwingli, but maybe Smyth. It was a practice of the Anabaptists which Luther condemned because they went against scripture in re-baptizing and later on in denying baptism to children.

[QuantaCura]

Luther did not use Scripture to defend infant baptism...he used Tradition--which did not conflict with Scripture.

But I am certain there are a few sola scriptura Lutherans on this forum who can craft a clever scriptural argument.

For me...I am happy with Tradition not in conflict with Scripture.

Pax-----R


I'm neither Lutheran nor Sola Scriptura, but maybe I can help. In Scripture, Baptism is called the new circumcision (Col. 2:11–12)--and circumcision was done to infants.

Likewise, we see whole households being Baptized in Scripture. (Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33). This implies children below the age of reason were Baptised.

Then, we see this statement by Jesus in Luke 18: 15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them. Which when the disciples saw, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus, calling them together, said: Suffer children to come to me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Hope that helps!!:crossrc:

[SPALATIN]

I'm neither Lutheran nor Sola Scriptura, but maybe I can help. In Scripture, Baptism is called the new circumcision (Col. 2:11–12)--and circumcision was done to infants.

Likewise, we see whole households being Baptized in Scripture. (Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33). This implies children below the age of reason were Baptised.

Then, we see this statement by Jesus in Luke 18: 15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them. Which when the disciples saw, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus, calling them together, said: Suffer children to come to me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Hope that helps!!:crossrc:

Very Good QuantaCura

[Protoevangel]

The argument from some is (and I am not saying I agree, I am playing devil's Advocate) that it is contrary to scripture.
Those people have the burden of proof. They cannot simply assert that 2000 years of practice is wrong (and expect any rational person versed in Scripture to take them seriously), unless they can clearly and definitively defend that assertion from Scripture.

It is also said that where scripture is silent, we should be silent also.

What do you say about this?
I have one thing to say about that argument... The very concept is unscriptural and self-refuting. Scripture is silent on that concept (that where scripture is silent, we should be silent also), therefore, if it were true, we must also be silent on it, and could not practice it.

The Lutheran understanding is that consciences cannot be bound where Scripture is silent, where a thing is neither commanded nor forbidden. Things neither commanded nor forbidden are called adiaphora, or "things indifferent." In other words, we cannot absolutely forbid what is not forbidden in Scripture, nor can we command that which is not commanded in Scripture.

[Colabomb]

Those people have the burden of proof. They cannot simply assert that 2000 years of practice is wrong (and expect any rational person versed in Scripture to take them seriously), unless they can clearly and definitively defend that assertion from Scripture.


I have one thing to say about that argument... The very concept is unscriptural and self-refuting. Scripture is silent on that concept (that where scripture is silent, we should be silent also), therefore, if it were true, we must also be silent on it, and could not practice it.

The Lutheran understanding is that consciences cannot be bound where Scripture is silent, where a thing is neither commanded nor forbidden. Things neither commanded nor forbidden are called adiaphora, or "things indifferent." In other words, we cannot absolutely forbid what is not forbidden in Scripture, nor can we command that which is not commanded in Scripture.
So you would say that if it is not mentioned in Scripture, that it doesn't matter.

An example would be driving a car? Or Worship on Sunday? (Yes I know the early Church met on the first day, but it was not a command Right?)

[Colabomb]

Then, we see this statement by Jesus in Luke 18: 15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them. Which when the disciples saw, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus, calling them together, said: Suffer children to come to me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.



A question (a real question, not an argument), what was the Jewish/Roman/Greek understanding of an infant at the time this was written?

For example, at the time of Christ, the wrist was considered part of the hand. In the modern day, we consider the wrist to be its own thing, not part of the hand.

What was an infant to them? A babe in arms? Or could they be older?

Again, I want to point out that I am not fighting. But I have to put my beliefs to scrutiny to know if I should believe them.

To be honest, I WANT to believe in Paedobaptism, but just because I want something does not mean it is Right.

If I got what I wanted, I'd be a universalist ;)

[Protoevangel]

So you would say that if it is not mentioned in Scripture, that it doesn't matter.
Not exactly. In many ways it "dosen't matter", but that does not mean that it is ok to just change things willy-nilly, just to change things. Something being adiaphora does not mean that it is not beneficial. Let us use the pastor's robe as a for instance. The robe is a visible sign of the office or work that the pastor has been chosen to do; it helps to cover the person, and show him as a servant. The robe reminds the congregation that they chose him and entrusted him with the administration of the Word and the Sacraments. While neither the Bible nor the confessions require pastors to wear robes, there is a clear benefit and usefulness for the robes, and the tradition should not be changed without a necessity that outweighs the benefit. If it were changed, that would not necessarily make the worship illicit, but the harm to consciences could be great.

An example would be driving a car? Or Worship on Sunday? (Yes I know the early Church met on the first day, but it was not a command Right?)
Right. If for some bizarre reason we were unable to worship on Sunday, it would not be forbidden for us to do so on any other day of the week. But then again, changing the day of Worship should not be done without an appropriately grave reason.

This which is adiahora, is in contrast to those things which areeither commanded or forbidden in Scripture; things which we cannot alter without being in deep error and danger of no longer being the Church.

[LilLamb219]

A question (a real question, not an argument), what was the Jewish/Roman/Greek understanding of an infant at the time this was written?

Does it really matter? I mean the real point is whether you believe that baptism is something we do or something God does? If it was something we do, then it's not by God's grace and age would be important. If it's something done by God for us, then it's by His grace and age does not make any difference as Jesus said to baptize all nations...infants and toddlers are a part of all nations and should not be excluded.

[Colabomb]

Regardless of how this turns out, pray for me, I struggle with Legalism.

[JVAC]

Hey,

Let me see if I can help with this a little.

A question (a real question, not an argument), what was the Jewish/Roman/Greek understanding of an infant at the time this was written?

(I shamefully don't have my resources with me at the moment)
The greek word for child is Paeda and for little child Teknia (forgive the spelling). While Paeda meant child, anyone who is not yet a man, andros, or woman, goonie ;). The word Teknia is usually used for younger children, infants, todlers, etc. However, The Greeks didn't view children as capable of full use of their logos, reasoning, and so were inferrior. Greeks, and the helenized world, would not accept children as making good decisions, definately not as good as a man or woman.

While there are records of Households being baptized (i can't give the word for that but I assume it is a derivative of oikia) on the account of one, it cannot be assumed that all these in the house were converted but that the head was converted, and where the head is the rest went out of devotion and tradition, not conversion. It is illogical to think all the slaves and family in one house converted at once and then baptized. I doubt the slaves had a choice in it. The family's religion is dependent on the head of the family almost always in that time.

-James

[Protoevangel]

A question (a real question, not an argument), what was the Jewish/Roman/Greek understanding of an infant at the time this was written?
Well, you have already been shown that Baptism is the sign of the new covenant just as circumcision was the sign of the old. Infants were to be circumcized no later than the eighth day of their life. That may provide what the Jews understood as infants. Also, were the infants to be included in the old covenant but excluded under the new?



If I got what I wanted, I'd be a universalist ;)
Me to! It would be so much easier, wouldn't it? :D

[filosofer]

Hey,
(I shamefully don't have my resources with me at the moment)
The greek word for child is Paeda and for little child Teknia (forgive the spelling). While Paeda meant child, anyone who is not yet a man, andros, or woman, goonie ;). The word Teknia is usually used for younger children, infants, todlers, etc. However, The Greeks didn't view children as capable of full use of their logos, reasoning, and so were inferrior. Greeks, and the helenized world, would not accept children as making good decisions, definately not as good as a man or woman.


Except the word used in Luke 18:15 is BREPHOS, and was used for small children and for children in the womb (Luke 1:41 - John in Elizabeth's womb is called a BREPHOS).

While there are records of Households being baptized (i can't give the word for that but I assume it is a derivative of oikia) on the account of one, it cannot be assumed that all these in the house were converted but that the head was converted, and where the head is the rest went out of devotion and tradition, not conversion. It is illogical to think all the slaves and family in one house converted at once and then baptized. I doubt the slaves had a choice in it. The family's religion is dependent on the head of the family almost always in that time.



Acts 16:33 - all who were his were baptized.

The validity of a baptism is not determined by whether the person beleives. However, the effectiveness/benefit of baptism is received only in faith. And yes, an infant can have faith. Ever wonder how a 3 week old can tell whether Mom is holding her or someone else? Does she sit up and say, "Well, I can tell you right now, that those are not Mom's arms!" No, but she nonetheless knows Mom and has trust in Mom's care protection.

Likewise, just because we want to quantify Baptism (through an adult articulated response) the essence of Baptism and its benefits are: Word, with the water, with faith receiving. And God creates the faith. Notice in Ephesians 2:4-5, that "God makes alive..." If God can make alive a spiritually dead person of 50 years of age (create faith), then God can make alive a spiritually dead person of 3 weeks age just as easily.

[Lutherrunner]

I wonder if Legalism is a form of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD)?........I wonder if some Prozac would help?......;)

Regardless of how this turns out, pray for me, I struggle with Legalism.

[JVAC]

Except the word used in Luke 18:15 is BREPHOS, and was used for small children and for children in the womb (Luke 1:41 - John in Elizabeth's womb is called a BREPHOS).




Acts 16:33 - all who were his were baptized.

The validity of a baptism is not determined by whether the person beleives. However, the effectiveness/benefit of baptism is received only in faith. And yes, an infant can have faith. Ever wonder how a 3 week old can tell whether Mom is holding her or someone else? Does she sit up and say, "Well, I can tell you right now, that those are not Mom's arms!" No, but she nonetheless knows Mom and has trust in Mom's care protection.

Likewise, just because we want to quantify Baptism (through an adult articulated response) the essence of Baptism and its benefits are: Word, with the water, with faith receiving. And God creates the faith. Notice in Ephesians 2:4-5, that "God makes alive..." If God can make alive a spiritually dead person of 50 years of age (create faith), then God can make alive a spiritually dead person of 3 weeks age just as easily.


I greatly appreciate your addition to my elementary greek!

However, I must contest the faith clause you added in chapter three. The Sacrament of Holy Baptism is not dependent on Man's ability at all, and so is truly genuine even when given to a heathen child. The promise of Baptism is in God's promise and not the child's. So where faith is absent the Sacrament is still valid. Human faith does not make a Sacrament but only God's Word, which never lies.

Even if one were to lose faith and reject his baptism, the baptismal Sacrament remains as a testament of condemnation, yet if that person comes back to the Holy Faith and recommits themself, the Sacramental Grace abounds still and the person does not need to be rebaptised because the Sacrament cannot be revoked by the person who didn't make the promise but only by the one who made the promise and He will never go back on His Promise.

-James

[LutherNut]

Except the word used in Luke 18:15 is BREPHOS, and was used for small children and for children in the womb (Luke 1:41 - John in Elizabeth's womb is called a BREPHOS).






Another Greek word used is "nepios" which mean "infant, small child" and in some contexts also means "childlike, childish, immature." See Hebrews 5:13, Romans 2:20, Ephesians 4:14.
:)


Jay

[filosofer]

However, I must contest the faith clause you added in chapter three. The Sacrament of Holy Baptism is not dependent on Man's ability at all, and so is truly genuine even when given to a heathen child. The promise of Baptism is in God's promise and not the child's. So where faith is absent the Sacrament is still valid. Human faith does not make a Sacrament but only God's Word, which never lies.

Even if one were to lose faith and reject his baptism, the baptismal Sacrament remains as a testament of condemnation, yet if that person comes back to the Holy Faith and recommits themself, the Sacramental Grace abounds still and the person does not need to be rebaptised because the Sacrament cannot be revoked by the person who didn't make the promise but only by the one who made the promise and He will never go back on His Promise.

-James


If you read carefully both the second and third paragraphs, you will note that I wrote that faith receives the benefits of baptism, but does not cause them, nor does it make Baptism effective.


The validity of a baptism is not determined by whether the person believes. However, the effectiveness/benefit of baptism is received only in faith.

The reason I wrote:


Likewise, just because we want to quantify Baptism (through an adult articulated response) the essence of Baptism and its benefits are: Word, with the water, with faith receiving. And God creates the faith.

was to counteract those who restrict the faith to those who can articulate it.

If necessary read Luther's SC, and LC to explore the views I have written.

[Colabomb]

Can you show me in Scripture where faith is the acceptance of a valid baptism and not the qualification?

[JVAC]

I apologize filo for not truly understanding what you were trying to say. I am man and I err.

Can you show me in Scripture where faith is the acceptance of a valid baptism and not the qualification?

Acts 16:14-15

Scripture says the Lord opened her heart to respond to the message and then she and her house was baptized. Scripture says that it was her belief and her devotion and not that of the entire house, it is singular not plural. Her Faith made the others get baptized.

-James

[BigNorsk]

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia does an exceptional job of laying out the cases for understanding baptism under the Lutheran, the non-immersion and the Baptist postitions. I would recommend going through their very complete entries.

Here is one link. (http://www.bible.org/isbe.asp?char=B)

Marv

[Colabomb]

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia does an exceptional job of laying out the cases for understanding baptism under the Lutheran, the non-immersion and the Baptist postitions. I would recommend going through their very complete entries.

Here is one link. (http://www.bible.org/isbe.asp?char=B)

Marv
Thanks, a lot of info here, and a convincing argument I may add.

[BigNorsk]

Thanks, a lot of info here, and a convincing argument I may add.

I know what I see when I read them, which "side" did you think was the convincing one?

Marv

[Colabomb]

I know what I see when I read them, which "side" did you think was the convincing one?

Marv
Towards infant baptism.

[MORTANIUS]

Colabomb, how are you my friend. For the most part, this is a Lutheran (a "protestant") understanding derived from the Holy Scriptures. I hope this helps. I read through this thread and although I may be repeating certain biblical passages or arguments I would like to contribute to this thread in my own way.

Regarding Infant Baptism (From the Holy Bible)

Colossians 2:11-12 makes reference to circumcision and how baptism is a substitute to this. Please read this passage from the Holy Scripture. It reflects one particular aspect that matters in this concern. Infants were circumsized, and so it was that as they did not have choice (their parents decided what was best for them) Baptism is applied to infants by choice of the parent (again as it is in the best interest of the child). This passage from Colossians stresses the replacement of circumcision with Baptism. So, considering that infants were circumcized, why not infant baptism which replaces circumcision?

Now then, here are some more passages that are useful.

Matthew 19:14

"Jesus said, 'let the children come to me and do not stop them, because the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these'"

Jesus Christ does not limit entrance to Heaven to only adults but to children as well.
If we read what is required for entrance into Heaven (read all of John 3) we realize it applies to children as well because nothing is mentioned of adult or child, male or female (only humanity is refered to)

Lets move on with more passages,

ACTS 2:38 - 39

"Peter said to them, 'Each one of you must turn away from his sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven; and you will receive God's gift, the Holy Spirit. For God's promise was made to you and your children, and to all who are far away....'"

Here it is not mentioning children in terms of distant generations/descendants. Had it meant descendants it would have mentioned it as such, as it does in many other areas of the bible regarding to generations or descendants. Here is specifically includes children in immediate terms.

I hope this will help anyone who is questioning infant baptism.

[No Swansong]

.

[Jim47]

I think you have a great son and he asks some pretty good questions. I was quite impressed in his systematic approach for investigating everything. I think we will all miss him when he goes off to school, although I'm sure he will drop in to say Hi. :wave:

[Colabomb]

I think you have a great son and he asks some pretty good questions. I was quite impressed in his systematic approach for investigating everything. I think we will all miss him when he goes off to school, although I'm sure he will drop in to say Hi. :wave:
I school online! I'll be around!

Thank you for the Complement.

[No Swansong]

.

[Colabomb]

Tom I think they were talking about College
Oh, um...

Yeah, I am a computer nut, I'll be posting in College.

That and I will be attending locally, so I will be living at home anyway.

[C.F.W. Walther]

I want to thank all of you for your responses and your constant care for my son Colabomb. He certainly is full of questions which I welcome most of the time anyway. It is not unusual for him to say Goodmorning, you know I was thinking last night if......?

A year from now he will be entering a public university; they won't know what hit them.

Colabomb is very astute for his young years and, to his credit, very inquisitive. Good luck on your search and studies Tom.





:confused:

[SPALATIN]

Colabomb is very astute for his young years and, to his credit, very inquisitive. Good luck on your search and studies Tom.





:confused:

One of the things that have been studied scientifically is the amount of questioning we do in life. When we are young children we ask all kinds of questions trying to learn about life as we live it, but when we get to our teens and 20s we don't question as much. Colabomb is the antithesis to this and it is good that he questions. His teachers will be challenged as will he in his educational endeavors. I wish him many blessings and one piece of advice. Never stop asking questions. :thumbsup: