Infant baptism

[Edial]

Why is there so much animosity towards infant baptism?

If the Bible does not forbid it, why say it is unscriptural?

Is this some type of a reaction against anything that Catholics do?

I am a Lutheran.
There was no one really as strongly opposed to Papal regime as Martin Luther was.

But why say infant baptism is unscriptural?
(My understanding of "unscriptural" is - against Scriptures).

(I did not see a Sticky in this sub-forum to understand it's rules. So Mods, please let me know what are my limitations in posting here outside of the site wide rules).

Thanks, :)
Ed

[TwistTim]

Why is there so much animosity towards infant baptism?

If the Bible does not forbid it, why say it is unscriptural?

Is this some type of a reaction against anything that Catholics do?

I am a Lutheran.
There was no one really as strongly opposed to Papal regime as Martin Luther was.

But why say infant baptism is unscriptural?
(My understanding of "unscriptural" is - against Scriptures).


PaedoBaptism is Unscriptural because it's not found in the Scriptures at all.... that is what makes a thing Unscriptural..... being not in the Scriptures......

it's Extra Biblical, does nothing for the salvation of the infants lives and the Catholic Church wrongly teaches that it does lead to salvation.... that's why many baptists oppose it....because it's tied to a heresy.....

of course we do have Baby Dedications, just sans water....or with a sprinkle if at any water..... but it is held as separate from a PaedoBaptism.... it is for the parents who wish to dedicate and confirm they will raise their Children in a Godly manner.... it has nothing to do with salvation......

salvation is only be Repentance and Faith.... nothing else.

(I did not see a Sticky in this sub-forum to understand it's rules. So Mods, please let me know what are my limitations in posting here outside of the site wide rules).

Thanks, :)
Ed
Limitations..... you can ask any questions you want, but do not attack Baptist Theology as wrong, or make personal attacks on members...... as far as I know that's the Limitations......

[Edial]

PaedoBaptism is Unscriptural because it's not found in the Scriptures at all.... that is what makes a thing Unscriptural..... being not in the Scriptures.....
Well, a word "unscriptural" means against Scriptures.
We have many things in life that are not specifically found in the Scriptures.
But let's put this aside. I just wanted to present my understanding of this word.

Infant baptism is indeed found in the NT and is specifically defined as baptizo, Greek for baptism.

Below we see about 2,000,000 Israelites passing therough the parted Sea. There certainly were infants among them that were carried by their parents.
They all were baptizo into Moses.

Besides, although baptizo means immersion in Greek, the Israelites certainly were not immersed in the parted sea.

So, the Bible does have a specific occurrence for an infant baptism.

1CO 10:1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert.

... it's Extra Biblical, does nothing for the salvation of the infants lives and the Catholic Church wrongly teaches that it does lead to salvation.... that's why many baptists oppose it....because it's tied to a heresy.....
Let's put the Catholics aside for now.
Martin Luther was very much against papacy.

Salvation has 2 spiritual meanings in the Bible.

1. It is synonymous with a personal justification, which is instantaneous, like in the case of Abraham.
2. It is also presented as a lifetime process.

In the Lutheran theology there are also two types of justification.
1. General justification for the world.
2. Personal justification.

Lutherans usually do not dwell on a personal justification. So, when they say the baby is saved, they mean that a grace of God is given to a baby - a lifetime of salvation starts.

If that baby grows up and denies Christ soberly and willfully, it is said that the baby lost salvation.

(Again, please note the differences between words salvation).

Also, the Lutherans teach if a baby is baptized (receives God's grace) and that baby dies, he/she goes to Heaven.
Because the baby died under God's grace, under "God's smile", if you wish.

If a baby is not baptized and dies, we do not know what happens to the baby.

... of course we do have Baby Dedications, just sans water....or with a sprinkle if at any water..... but it is held as separate from a PaedoBaptism.... it is for the parents who wish to dedicate and confirm they will raise their Children in a Godly manner.... it has nothing to do with salvation.......
Fine. Good for you. :)

...salvation is only be Repentance and Faith.... nothing else.
That is fine. You are talking about a personal justification, which is by faith.
The overwhelming emphasys of the NT is certainly on that.


Limitations..... you can ask any questions you want, but do not attack Baptist Theology as wrong, or make personal attacks on members...... as far as I know that's the Limitations......
Fair enough. :)

Thanks, :)
Ed

[toirewadokodesuka]

Why is there so much animosity towards infant baptism?

If the Bible does not forbid it, why say it is unscriptural?

Is this some type of a reaction against anything that Catholics do?

I am a Lutheran.
There was no one really as strongly opposed to Papal regime as Martin Luther was.

But why say infant baptism is unscriptural?
(My understanding of "unscriptural" is - against Scriptures).

(I did not see a Sticky in this sub-forum to understand it's rules. So Mods, please let me know what are my limitations in posting here outside of the site wide rules).

Thanks, :)
Ed

Having read the bible pretty well, I don't see anything that suggests infant baptism there... the more protestant bible, but in catholic scriptures and teachings you will find teachings on infant baptism. There are other churches that teach on Infant Baptism too, but its not really biblical in the sense of being mentioned in the bible (66 books).

[Edial]

Having read the bible pretty well, I don't see anything that suggests infant baptism there... the more protestant bible, but in catholic scriptures and teachings you will find teachings on infant baptism. There are other churches that teach on Infant Baptism too, but its not really biblical in the sense of being mentioned in the bible (66 books).
Lutherans also have 66 books.

Perhabs you missed the reply I posted to TwistTim concerning the NT verse on infant baptism.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[toirewadokodesuka]

Lutherans also have 66 books.

Perhabs you missed the reply I posted to TwistTim concerning the NT verse on infant baptism.

Thanks, :)
Ed

Deliberately missed, but I gave it a quick read now. I picked up on what you said here:

Well, a word "unscriptural" means against Scriptures.
We have many things in life that are not specifically found in the Scriptures.
But let's put this aside. I just wanted to present my understanding of this word.

Infant baptism is indeed found in the NT and is specifically defined as baptizo, Greek for baptism.

Below we see about 2,000,000 Israelites passing therough the parted Sea. There certainly were infants among them that were carried by their parents.
They all were baptizo into Moses.

Besides, although baptizo means immersion in Greek, the Israelites certainly were not immersed in the parted sea.

So, the Bible does have a specific occurrence for an infant baptism.

1CO 10:1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert.

But I dont think anything there suggests "infant" baptism, unless you have another way of explaining it?

[toirewadokodesuka]

Greek baptizo denotes immersion yeah... kinda... but it doesn't denote a type of baptizo unless it is accompanied with another greek word... the greek word for "infant". so no offence, and im not saying i dont agree with the idea, im just saying i dont think one can really support it with the more protestant scriptures.

[Edial]

...
But I dont think anything there suggests "infant" baptism, unless you have another way of explaining it?
Well, 2,000,000 people that consisted of many families were baptizo, Greek for baptized.
You do not think there were infants among them?

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

Greek baptizo denotes immersion yeah... kinda... but it doesn't denote a type of baptizo unless it is accompanied with another greek word... the greek word for "infant". so no offence, and im not saying i dont agree with the idea, im just saying i dont think one can really support it with the more protestant scriptures.
No offense taken ... :)

All I am saying that the Scriptures do support the fact that infants were baptized.
We see 2,000,000 people consisting of families who all were baptized.

And the mode of baptism is not necessarily full immersion, as we have seen, although baptizo does mean to immerse.

I very much agree with the Baptists' believer's baptism.
It definitely is Scriptural.

I do not agree that some make strong statements that infant baptism is unscriptural.

That's all.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[toirewadokodesuka]

No offense taken ... :)

All I am saying that the Scriptures do support the fact that infants were baptized.
We see 2,000,000 people consisting of families who all were baptized.

And the mode of baptism is not necessarily full immersion, as we have seen, although baptizo does mean to immerse.

I very much agree with the Baptists' believer's baptism.
It definitely is Scriptural.

I do not agree that some make strong statements that infant baptism is unscriptural.

That's all.

Thanks, :)
Ed

I see what your saying, but I dont think that is grounds for an actual doctrine of infant baptism. That baptizo was a very general baptism... and it wasnt really a baptism in the physical sense of being immersed. Its more like being immersed in gods protection, because they were being protected right?... infant, maternal, paternal... so many derivatives of baptism there, but not in the physical sense to my mind. The israelites were also baptised under a cloud hey? i dont think this sort of baptism can really be compared to the annointing done in actual infant baptism... unless im misunderstanding u. what u say m8?

[Edial]

There are at least 2 points you are making, and good ones too.
I'd like to address them one at a time.
I see what your saying, but I dont think that is grounds for an actual doctrine of infant baptism.
The doctrine of infant baptism in not emphasysed in the NT. Yes, the emphasys is on the adult baptism. Turn from your idols. Repent. Believe. Be baptized.
Yet infant baptism is presented as a given. NT freely stated that the Israelites were baptizo. There was nothing in this text to say that infants should not have been baptized. All were. And that spiritual act of baptism also included water (parted sea).
I'll touch on this later.

Also, prior to the RC papacy, which was solidly established in 350(?)th AD (papacy was there prior to it too, of course) infant baptism was commonly and regularly practiced in Christendom.
Now, if infant baptism was already established as a common practice by 200-300 AD it means it was practiced way before that too.
For something to be established as a normative procedure, it takes many years practicing it.

Now, 200-300AD is pretty early.

And people of God at the times were in many way much more God fearing and faithful, since they actually knew and listened to the disciples of the disciples of Christ.
IF, infant baptism would be unscriptural, it would have been taught so and they would have been corrected and told to stop.

The disciples of the disiciples of the disiciples of Christ apparently did not think it was unscriptural and against that what they heard from Jesus Christ.

That baptizo was a very general baptism... and it wasnt really a baptism in the physical sense of being immersed. Its more like being immersed in gods protection, because they were being protected right?... infant, maternal, paternal... so many derivatives of baptism there, but not in the physical sense to my mind. The israelites were also baptised under a cloud hey? i dont think this sort of baptism can really be compared to the annointing done in actual infant baptism... unless im misunderstanding u. what u say m8?
Yes. It is a spiritual baptism of infants.
However, we also see a physical presence of water.
This should not be ignored.

Let's look at this same text from this angle.

1CO 10:1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

I'll present an example from v.3 of what I am leading to concerning baptism.

In v.3 we see that all of them ate spiritual food and drink. That spiritual drink was accompanying them and was called a spiritual rock, who is Christ.
At the same time we know from OT that Moses actually struck a physical rock with his staff and miraculously got water from it. (Ps 74:14-17).

So, we see spiritual and physical in one context, in one paragraph.

Going back to parted Sea..

Picture a parted sea.
Huge walls of water on either side of us.
2,000,000 people together with horses, carriages, whatever else, frantically running through ... Egyptians behind them and gaining.

The ground on which they pass is dry. (Ex.14:16)
Yet it probably is not as dry as the desert-type "dry". It is most probably dry enough to pass through, yet is somehow moist.

There probably are fish on the ground and so forth.

Also, if two walls of water stand on either side and there was this strong wind that parted them (Ex. 14:21-22), the walls of water would not just stand there in a perfect glassy walls.
They would stand parted, yet highly unstable, just enough for the Israelites to pass through and to collapse on the Egyptians.
And if the waters are unstable, there certainly would be mist coming out of it and the Israelites would certainly be wet. Maybe a little, but still wet.

So, there is a spiritual act of baptism, as well as the physical one.

Now, the Lutherans have only 2 sacraments, Lord's Supper and Baptism, same as the Baptists do.

However, Lutherans somehow unite the physical and spirtual in one.
Physical does not cease to be physical, spiritual does not cease to be spiritual ... it is just somehow united.
Lutherans cannot explain how. (Actually, no one can. :))

Thanks, :)
Ed