Infant Baptism

[LutheranHawkeye]

If an infant is not baptized and dies in the first couple of years of life, does the infant go to hell? Also, as a side note, are there any elca members in this forum? We could really eliminate the denominational lutheran forums and just have this. Seeing as 90% of lay lutheran people who are interested in theology are confessional. The others just don't really care.

[LilLamb219]

If an infant is not baptized and dies in the first couple of years of life, does the infant go to hell?

That's not for us to say but God is merciful. We don't know if God's Word reached the child to grant him/her faith or not. We leave it in God's hands and trust that He is just.

[C.F.W. Walther]

If an infant is not baptized and dies in the first couple of years of life, does the infant go to hell? Also, as a side note, are there any elca members in this forum? We could really eliminate the denominational lutheran forums and just have this. Seeing as 90% of lay lutheran people who are interested in theology are confessional. The others just don't really care.

LOL---boy you really know how to stir things up don't you. :)

I though I was off the wall ^_^

[BigNorsk]

While it is believed that baptism is important and that indeed baptism offers grace and the forgiveness of sins. I'm not aware of any Lutheran stance that would say baptism is absolutely necessary to receive salvation.

And I don't know where you got your characterization that ELCA members aren't interested in theology. I think it would be a fair statement to make that the majority of members in almost any synod don't spend a lot of time discussing theology, but that there are those to whom it is very important.

The 90% number might be true in your experience, but that would be because you are surrounding yourself, intentionally or unintentionally with confessional people. There often, even normally isn't much mixing going on.

Marv

[SPALATIN]

If an infant is not baptized and dies in the first couple of years of life, does the infant go to hell? Also, as a side note, are there any elca members in this forum? We could really eliminate the denominational lutheran forums and just have this. Seeing as 90% of lay lutheran people who are interested in theology are confessional. The others just don't really care.

I will answer the first part of your query as the other is not something I want to tackle as it does bring trouble.

Baptism is necessary, but not absolutely necessary for one's salvation. If a child should die before he is baptized we must then put the issue of the child's salvation into the efficacious Grace and mercy of our Lord and Savior.

There are ELCA people here and there have been many times when we have clashed and brought the wrath of the Moderators. I wish not to bring trouble at this time so we need to keep things the way they are for the time being.

[Jim47]

If an infant is not baptized and dies in the first couple of years of life, does the infant go to hell? Also, as a side note, are there any elca members in this forum? We could really eliminate the denominational lutheran forums and just have this. Seeing as 90% of lay lutheran people who are interested in theology are confessional. The others just don't really care.


I have a link at the bottom from WELS Q&A forum which has many articles about infant baptism and about anything else you may have a question about.

As for the forum, Big Norsk has it right. This arrangment has worked really well and everyone has their own sub forum when they feel a need for more private disuccion.


http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?process&procID=1518&cuQA_qaID=1&cuTopic_topicID=53&cuItem_itemID=11642

[LutheranHawkeye]

But to be deep into lutheranism is to be confessional. So people who are not deep into it, usually don't post on these forums. Most elca members on here that post all the time are confessional, take for instance our mod melethiel.

[BigNorsk]

Okay if you want to define things that way then you're right.

It's true that most Lutherans who study things basically get to where they would agree with the Confessions, oh maybe not exactly on everything but really pretty close.

It's just evidence that the confessions are pretty good and that by and large, there is much agreement within the umbrella of Lutheranism.

I would prefer to call those people something such as orthodox Lutherans, and refer to confessionals as those who maintain a quia subscription to the confessions. Basically because that is what those groups who call themselves confessional Lutherans require and to take a different meaning than is commonly used gets confusing.

If we call all those who agree or mostly agree to be confessional Lutherans I know some anabaptist confessional Lutherans.

Marv

[IowaLutheran]

If an infant is not baptized and dies in the first couple of years of life, does the infant go to hell? Also, as a side note, are there any elca members in this forum? We could really eliminate the denominational lutheran forums and just have this. Seeing as 90% of lay lutheran people who are interested in theology are confessional. The others just don't really care.

It seems like whenever the discussion comes up on who is confessional and who is not it gets into a bunch of latin terms that I don't understand even though I'm a lawyer and I throw terms around like quid pro quo and falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus in my day job.

[C.F.W. Walther]

It seems like whenever the discussion comes up on who is confessional and who is not it gets into a bunch of latin terms that I don't understand even though I'm a lawyer and I throw terms around like quid pro quo and falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus in my day job.

Whoa!! ---- do they allow talking about "falsies in a bus" here??

** goes to check the forum rules **

[Melethiel]

Whoa!! ---- do they allow talking about "falsies in a bus" here??

** goes to check the forum rules **
As long as you don't actually accuse anyone of being one of the said falsies. :P

[ctay]

Y'all crack me up..... LOL

[BigNorsk]

It seems like whenever the discussion comes up on who is confessional and who is not it gets into a bunch of latin terms that I don't understand even though I'm a lawyer and I throw terms around like quid pro quo and falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus in my day job.

That can be a real problem. Hopefully the desire in using such terms is that they have been defined explicitely and so they can actually be an aid to getting away from misunderstandings, just as the latin phrases used in Law practice serve the same way. They serve as a marker in the conversation to say this is what I mean.

Unfortunately, they can also be used subtly or not so subtly to show that the user is superior to others and a better class of Lutheran due to more education or at least knowing some Latin phrases. I've seen them both used well, to let others know exactly what is being spoken about, and not so well, to show the speaker is superior to his listeners.

Scary to me are the people who can use the phrases but can't explain them. It is as if the phrases are the end or almost a means of grace. And if people don't know them but use them, then meanings get inserted into vacuums and it's off to who knows where.

Sometimes it seems to me that some people are actually afraid not to use the exact words they memorize. I wonder how much they really know. I had a math teacher that could do most any problem and get the correct answer, but had no real understanding of mathematics. She was a horrible teacher, the only thing she could do is have you keep doing examples until you memorized how to do them. I fear that for many, Christianity is just a bunch of memorized bits without any real knowledge. Maybe I'm worried over nothing, but based on the number of people I run into who have not a clue if they are a bit of the memorized path, I don't think it's nothing.


Marv

[RayJGentry]

hi, it's me! i've been busy lately so haven't been posting as much lately, but i'm ELCA. the ELCA, as a denomination, may not be all that confessional, but i think there are a fair number of confessional ELCA's that post in this forum. regardless, ELCA theology (not denominational tendency) falls most closely (and some might agree within) the rest of the Lutheran denomination. i agree there are differences, but we seem to get along fairly decently in here and i don't think that the ELCA would fit elsewhere. our own subforum give us an area to discuss things that might not create nice discussion in the main forum, within our own subforum.

[JVAC]

Article II: Of Original Sin.

1] Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with 2] concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.

3] They condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that original depravity is sin, and who, to obscure the glory of Christ's merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before God by his own strength and reason.

Article IX: Of Baptism.

1] Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary 2] to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God's grace.

3] They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.

The Augsburg Confession says it is necessary to emphasize urgency. It emphasizes Mk 16:16 and John 3:5.




With respect to ELCA peeps, I am one of those heretics. I am also a strict confessionalist, when it comes to the AC.

-James

[stumpjumper]

hi, it's me! i've been busy lately so haven't been posting as much lately, but i'm ELCA. the ELCA, as a denomination, may not be all that confessional, but i think there are a fair number of confessional ELCA's that post in this forum. regardless, ELCA theology (not denominational tendency) falls most closely (and some might agree within) the rest of the Lutheran denomination. i agree there are differences, but we seem to get along fairly decently in here and i don't think that the ELCA would fit elsewhere. our own subforum give us an area to discuss things that might not create nice discussion in the main forum, within our own subforum.

I agree.

I'm an ELCA Lutheran and I care a great deal about theology even if I may not be considered a confessional Lutheran... 'Though, I'm pretty close...

I do not think that Baptism is absolutely neccesary for salvation as making it a requirement seems to counteract monergistic justification by grace...

[JVAC]

In reply to stumpjumper,

If one regards baptism as "absolutely necessary" it does not "counteract monergism" as long as one defines the sacraments in a Lutheran way.

-James

[RayJGentry]

i think the issue of baptism comes down to that it's something that should be done, but obviously isn't necesarry.there's the ever used thief on the cross example. God can do it. but it's something that a confessed christian should do, or that can be done for an infant. ultimately it's faith that gets us to heaven. i guess we could begin to discuss the age of accountability issue with it too.

[Jim47]

RayJGentry i guess we could begin to discuss the age of accountability issue with it too.




Do you mean like at conception? :(

[stumpjumper]

If one regards baptism as "absolutely necessary" it does not "counteract monergism" as long as one defines the sacraments in a Lutheran way.

-James

I have had all four of my children Baptised as infants so I certainly believe in and accept the validity of infant Baptism.... But, I am generally unwilling to make anything a requirement for salvation.

I think it is a very important sacrament and certainly the best first step in one's walk as a Christian but once we start viewing anything as a requirement for salvation we draw back from simply focusing on the free and all-forgiving grace of God... Was Abraham Baptised?

Oh... Look up the differences between the Greek words used to describe John the Baptist's baptism of general people Mark 1:5 and Jesus in Mark 1:9. Regular people were baptised in the river Jordan while Jesus was baptised into the river Jordan.

Jesus was Baptised into the utter depths of existence and came up staring at the heavens rent asunder...

[MORTANIUS]

An infant that is not baptized, and happens to leave our world is much like a stillborn infant. This is not for us to interpret and most likely (as with all things) serves the Lords purpose in all our spiritual lives.

Such a loving Christ would not commit innocence to Hell, and yet some would argue that Jesus makes it explicitly known that Baptism is necessary to enter Heaven. On the other hand, such instructions are directed to those people who can baptize one another (and infants) and this is why it is Sacramental.

On the other hand, Jesus Christ did say that we must become like children to enter Heaven (innocence?).

Ultimately, it is in the mystery of Gods purpose that these matters are left to. We are not capable of approaching such a delicate subject, even with theology.

Let us pray to all the departed innocence and pray to the Lord for some sense of understanding.

[LilLamb219]

But, I am generally unwilling to make anything a requirement for salvation.

Although it's not a requirement, scriptures does say that baptism now saves you. So, instead of turning into Law like other denoms do, Lutherans, of course, see it as Gospel :) We thank God for baptism as we have an assurance of salvation for our little ones (and ourselves!). We know that in the waters of baptism that God washes away our sins, gives us the forgiveness that was won at the cross, clothes us in Christ's righteousness and gives us the gift of the Holy Spirit. So many things He does for us with the water and Word that instead of saying we NEED to get baptized, we can say, Thank God For Baptism and who wouldn't want it??? :)

[Jim47]

Although it's not a requirement, scriptures does say that baptism now saves you. So, instead of turning into Law like other denoms do, Lutherans, of course, see it as Gospel :) We thank God for baptism as we have an assurance of salvation for our little ones (and ourselves!). We know that in the waters of baptism that God washes away our sins, gives us the forgiveness that was won at the cross, clothes us in Christ's righteousness and gives us the gift of the Holy Spirit. So many things He does for us with the water and Word that instead of saying we NEED to get baptized, we can say, Thank God For Baptism and who wouldn't want it??? :)



:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Also, as a side note, are there any elca members in this forum? We could really eliminate the denominational lutheran forums and just have this. Seeing as 90% of lay lutheran people who are interested in theology are confessional. The others just don't really care.


:scratch:


Disclaimer: I am not an official spokesperson for the 70,000,000 Lutherans of the world, nor am I an official spokesperson for any official Office of Information of any Lutheran denomination, synod, or organization. I speak for me and only me alone.


Some of MY thoughts...


I've not experienced too many Lutheran laypersons that quote significantly from the Lutheran Confessions. Most, I've found, are familiar with only the Small Catechism - and some of them don't seem to know that perhaps 90% of the Catechism book they got in Confirmation class is not actually the Catechism at all.


Personally, I have a copy of the Confessions. It's the reader's addition published by CPH. My father has the more official version, with German and Latin texts. Some I'm skimmed, some I've studied. I wonder what percentage of lay persons in the LCMS - those 2.5 million members even own a copy of the Confessions? Does anyone know that exact percentage? For lay persons in the LCMS? ELCA?


My hunch is that pastors are probably more apt to encourage the reading and study of the Bible, which is probably why most Lutheran churches study the Bible in Sunday School and adult classes more than the Solid Declaration or the Apology or the Power and Primacy of the Pope. I suspect that's true in LCMS and ELCA congregations, but I don't know.


Just some of MY personal thoughts...


- Josiah


.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Although it's not a requirement, scriptures does say that baptism now saves you. So, instead of turning into Law like other denoms do, Lutherans, of course, see it as Gospel :) We thank God for baptism as we have an assurance of salvation for our little ones (and ourselves!). We know that in the waters of baptism that God washes away our sins, gives us the forgiveness that was won at the cross, clothes us in Christ's righteousness and gives us the gift of the Holy Spirit. So many things He does for us with the water and Word that instead of saying we NEED to get baptized, we can say, Thank God For Baptism and who wouldn't want it??? :)


Well said.
Thank you!

[stumpjumper]

LilLamb

I can certainly agree with that too... Baptism being a sign of salvation... here and now and onward... A red flag just goes up for me when other Christians (I'm not talking about here in this sub-forum) state that it is a requirement for salvation.

[LilLamb219]

I wonder what percentage of lay persons in the LCMS - those 2.5 million members even own a copy of the Confessions? Does anyone know that exact percentage?

I don't know the percentage, but ever since the newest confessions came out, I know there are a LOT of people who ordered a copy!! :) I ordered 3, kept one and gave two away!

[JVAC]

I have had all four of my children Baptised as infants so I certainly believe in and accept the validity of infant Baptism.... But, I am generally unwilling to make anything a requirement for salvation.

I think it is a very important sacrament and certainly the best first step in one's walk as a Christian but once we start viewing anything as a requirement for salvation we draw back from simply focusing on the free and all-forgiving grace of God... Was Abraham Baptised?

Oh... Look up the differences between the Greek words used to describe John the Baptist's baptism of general people Mark 1:5 and Jesus in Mark 1:9. Regular people were baptised in the river Jordan while Jesus was baptised into the river Jordan.

Jesus was Baptised into the utter depths of existence and came up staring at the heavens rent asunder...

You raise up some great issues! Your post shows your Lutheran concern for the free grace of God. You first stated, "I am generally unwilling to make anything a requirement for salvation". However, you and I would agree together that God's grace is a requirement for salvation, as good Lutherans. Yet also as good Lutherans we confess that God's grace is given through Word and Sacrament as through instruments. God's sacrament of adoption is entirely God's work, and is a product of His grace. Thus recieving the sacrament is in effect recieving a part of the requirement, recieving a part of God's grace.

If we hold the above belief, that God makes the sacrament happen, and gives his grace freely to any in this sacrament, how does that take away from God's grace? By saying, one must be adopted into the family of God to be part of the family seems to make perfect sense.

With respect to your petition of Abraham, doubtless the Augsburg doesn't go on to mean this. When the Augsburg Confesses, it does so against those who have made the Sacrament a mere profession of Faith, instead of the act of the God of Armies claiming his own from the hand of Satan. This is truly what the AC wanted to communicate, not a "I have a part in salvation" but a "I am so lost, praise be to God who saw my estate and lifted me e'en while I didn't deserve it". The AC meets the heretics on this ground, it does not seek to establish a check list for heaven, rather it is a defense of the Sacrament. When it says it is necessary, it is because God's grace is necessary.

With respect to your philological inquiry. I don't see a significant differance between en and eis. Eis is a broader preposition an can be used in many more ways. It makes for a beautiful multi-level meaning in the Holy Sacrament, but when it comes to the Gospels, I think too much is being read into with respect to the Baptism of John. Here it is much more traditional to view it as "in" rather than "Into". No offense but, this argument seems to be a neo-evangelical 'hail-mary play' trying to win some for their side rather than a true, historical-critical rendering, or even a rendering in harmony with exegesis of the Church catholic (unless you know sources that I have yet to read, which I would appreciate you to point me toward!).

-James

[stumpjumper]

Yet also as good Lutherans we confess that God's grace is given through Word and Sacrament as through instruments. God's sacrament of adoption is entirely God's work, and is a product of His grace. Thus recieving the sacrament is in effect recieving a part of the requirement, recieving a part of God's grace.

I don't have time for a long response...

But, I tend to look at Luther's view of the sacraments as not neccesarily limiting. Yes, he limited sacraments to the two (or three if you include confession) that Christ instituted but I tend to see his view as acknowledging that we can recieve God's grace in more ways than just the Sacrament of the Altar and Baptism.

ISTM, that his response against Rome was more centered around their view of dispensing sacraments in varying ways and limiting God's grace and dispensation to certain methods that were only accessible to the Roman Church.

In that sense, then, where is the Word and Sacrament? Can God's grace not be found in more places than simply in the sacraments instituted by Jesus? Is the Word not a living entity that can find it's way in through a closed door?

If we hold the above belief, that God makes the sacrament happen, and gives his grace freely to any in this sacrament, how does that take away from God's grace? By saying, one must be adopted into the family of God to be part of the family seems to make perfect sense.

I wouldn't say it takes away from God's grace but I don't think that Luther's view was meant to limit grace only to the sacraments instituted by Christ.
[quote]With respect to your philological inquiry. I don't see a significant differance between en and eis. Eis is a broader preposition an can be used in many more ways. It makes for a beautiful multi-level meaning in the Holy Sacrament, but when it comes to the Gospels, I think too much is being read into with respect to the Baptism of John.

I think the distinction was intentional though... It also has a connection to Jesus calming the storm as to ancient Jews water represented chaos. It represented primordial chaos and uncertainty and in the miracle account where Jesus was asleep in the boat during what would be considered a class 5 hurricane (as the greek word used in the calming of the storm was something along the lines of a catastrophic storm) Jesus had control over the chaos.

In the part about being baptised into the river, then, it was a subtle play to show that Jesus was baptised into the depths of the world and controlled the chaotic nature of the world...