Baptizing Babies

Chemnitz

You do not have to explain the Lutheran Church to me. I was raised in the Lutheran Church. I was awarded to the courts and placed in Lutheran Children Family Services as a small child.

Gethsemane Lutheran Church LCMS - Lemay Mo.

Wheres the scripture?

I think I am done here. Everything I have said I backed with scripture. You babble on and on and never say anything.

Sherrie

 

Sherrie,

"Now you say babies have to be baptized. Why? Where do they go if they are not? Why would God, who is in charge of all things, creates all things, is the Ulitmate in all things; create a baby and know it will die and know it will not be able to be baptized, do so?"

All I ask is that you give me some scripture that explicitly supports the view that babies don't have to be baptized and they all, even the pagan ones, go straight to heaven when they die. You have given me none. Now this is not a problem for me but for a Southern Baptist Sola Sciprura beleiver (the real issue here) it is a problem. I have not said that babies go to hell. I trust in God's mercy and justice. I also think it possible that he might not be limited to his sacrements for the salvation of men who are in ignorance. But for me, I see the need for baptism of babies to bring them in to God's Church and make them a part of the salvation he won for us on the cross. Babies need God to get to heaven also. Noone created creature can do it in their own.

I am still interested in further discussing how a kid stealing a cookie is in the same category as a doctor performing thousands of abortions. But haven't had time to persue it with you. My suspiscion in that regard is that like the baptism of infants issue, you believe what the Baptist Church teaches you. I of course place a high regard on what the Catholic Church teaches me, I freely admit that. I just don't know why we can't get baptists to admit it. They speak as if they individually discovered everything they post in the Bible themselves.

Blessings.

 

I thought I was talking about things as a Christian. Baptist had nothing to do with any of our conversation. Not one time did I say you Catholic, or Me Baptist.

I do not however see why it is important to have these discussions, or debates , whatever you want to call them, with so much rage or hate.

If you wish to start a topic on commandments do so. I will discuss in a kind manner with you. But this topic was on baptism, and frankly it is not even a good debate. If one person can use text to make a point, then the other side should be able to do so too. If one side is required to use scripture, than the other side should do so too. But name calling does not even make for a good debate or discussion.

Rage, and hate, will not bring anyone to the Lord, or help anyone to see anything the others way.

Sherrie

 

And you have the gall to accuse me of personal attacks :mad: .
What Scripture? You haven't used exactly used a great deal of scripture to defend your position. We are still waiting for the verse that specifically states that infants don't need Christ because they are born innocent.

Word has power to create faith (Roman 10:17, Jn 17:20; 1 Thes 2:13, 1 Pt 1:23, 1 cor 4:15; Jms 1:18)
The command to baptize Mt 28:18-20
Baptism is water and word (Eph 5:26)
The promise of forgiveness is connected to baptism (Acts 2:38, 22:16, Gal 3:27, Eph 5:26, 1 Pt 3:21, Col 2:12

 

All I have to say is this:

(1) Jesus said ALLOW THEM TO COME not FORCE THEM
(2) Peter says baptism is a pledge of a good conscience
(3) Justin Martyr - we are baptized so that we may be children of knowledge and choice and recieve remission of past sins in the water
(4) Tertullian - the Lord said "let them come." Indeed let them come, when they know how to come. Let them learn how to ask for salvation so that it can be said you gave to him that asked.
(5) Heb 8:8-12 "...I will make a New Covenant...[in which] they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest." -- No infants or people who don't know God in the New Covenant -- only those who are taught are in the New Covenant.

Chemnitz, note that Jesus says "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them..." -- They are to be taught or "made disciples" before being baptized.

As above, they are to be made disciples first. Surely you are not saying that Jesus sent the apostles to force those that did not want to be baptized and did not believe in Christ to be baptized? Those people are just as much part of all nations as anyone else, but it is obvious that Jesus only meant for them to baptize those who were made disciples, especially since in Mark's account he says "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved."

It's not a matter of age, but of ability. Does an infant understand human language? How will they comprehend the word? Are you saying that baptism infuses a knowledge of the word of God into an unwilling subject? That's ridiculous! I don't even see where you could get the idea that it would do that to a willing subject!

If infants have faith, they should be able to confess it. I would baptize an infant if he would tell me "I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Otherwise, I would not. "If you believe with all your heart, you may." (Acts 8:37)

Ezek 18:20 "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." -- It's pretty simple! Unless an infant is able to commit personal sin prior to birth, it must be born pure! It cannot bear Adam's guilt -- if it is guilty, it is guilty due to personal sin. What sin is there that we can commit before birth? Which of the 10 commandments can be broken in the womb? Can the unborn child carve an idol? Can it take the Lord's name in vain being no able to speak? Does it ever do work? Does it dishonor it's parents? Does it murder, commit adultery, bear false witness, or covet?

[ February 02, 2003, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

First off Jesus died on the cross for our Salvation. His blood was shed for our sins. We are saved by what God has done for us in Jesus. 2Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:5 Rom. 5:10 6:5-14 2Cor. 3:18

Salvation releases us from the wrath of God, and the penalty of sin. Salvation is the Hope that Jesus will come back and get us. It is not in the baptism. Baptism only announces that faith and is an outward jesture of how we feel inside.

Ephesians 2:1-10 by grace you have been saved...

How does this grace work in our lives:

(John 16: 8-10)...He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgement: of sin because they do not believe in me....

1 Corinthians 12:3 No one can say Jesus Christ is Lord, but by the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit convicts our hearts. We can not say Lord, and repent unless the Holy Spirit is in us to say so.

Luke 1:41 The Holy Spirit was in Elizabeth while she was pregnet with John. She was not baptised.

Again this testifies that the Holy Spirit is needed.

Now go back just a little to Luke 1:15. that he should be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mothers womb.

Jewish history even says a child is not accountable for his sins until after the age of 12.

We are born into a sinful nature. But until we are able to account for our sins, we are not held responsible for them. Nor are we responsible for someone elses sins.

Thank you
Sherrie

 

Is not canonical so is moot, outside of illustrating they got just one more thing wrong.

Doesn't do John much good.

Again only proves that infants can have faith. So once again why deny Baptism to infants? But still doesn't prove that infants are born innocent.

You didn't even bother to grapple with my arguments. So why did I even bother presenting evidence.

Actually it doesn't specify any specific order. Besides, in case you didn't notice, the teaching comes after the baptizing in this section.

If knowledge is what determines saving faith then I guess that all the demons and satan are going to be saved also.

 

circumcision was a baptism in the old testament; But in the New Testament Peter tells us in Acts, it is not necessary any longer. Because the blood is through Jesus Christ now.

Sherrie

 

Once again, Carson, you appear to have abandoned the attempt to show infant baptism in the NT. The household baptisms had preaching and believing the word before baptisms, and so does the rest of Scripture. Your doctrine is neither taught nor practiced in the Bible. You end up teaching the customs of men in opposition to the Word of God.
This is a serious matter.
Take care, Colin

 

Hi Colin,

Once again, Carson, you appear to have abandoned the attempt to show infant baptism in the NT.

And, once again, you have abandoned the attempt to show how anyone in the New Testament Churches after the New Testament advocated this purely symbolic view of baptism that you condone.

Justin, who was martyred for the Christian faith in the Roman Colisseum, writes to the Emperor Titus, "As many as are persuaded and believe that what we Christians teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father ... and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61, A.D. 151).

That's what Christians have taught and believed from the beginning. That's the interpretation you reject, and which I affirm. It isn't a matter of who's using Scripture; it's a matter of who is using Scripture in truth.

You see, Colin, I believe in a historical Christianity, not a Christianity confined to my private judgment of the Bible. If my interpretation of Scripture is to be correct, then I should see evidence of my interpretations being lived out in the Christian Churches after the New Testament, which are the same Churches as those established and living in the New Testament.

This is why my Church is Apostolic. It reaches back to the Apostles' hands, not John Smyth, Robert Brown, Jacob Amman, William Miller, Henry VIII, John Knox, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Ellen White, Menno Simmons, John Thomas, or Thomas Campbell.

The problem with Baptist Churches is that they didn't exist either in the New Testament nor after the New Testament. They are an attempted recreation of the Churches in the New Testament as the result of private interpretation of Scripture, which, of course, can not be attested to in the Churches outside of the New Testament because they weren't in the New Testament to begin with!

God bless,

Carson

[ February 03, 2003, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Knowledge is necessary to having faith, but knowledge is not faith. Romans 10:14 says "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? [17] So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." A person must hear and understand God's word to have faith, BUT, hearing and understanding are not faith. Faith is trust and obedience, and the demons neither trust nor obey. And, what could the demons trust in? Christ did not die for them! "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." (Heb 2:16)

 

Your argument is not even remotely internally consistant. Believing does not mean knowledge. And neither Faith or trust require knowledge in fact, just the opposite. True faith and trust comes in the absence of knowledge.