guidedbygrace said: Wow! I sincerely apologize. I didn't realize my tone in any way conveyed that I was desiring confrontation. Since I'm new to this forum I was honestly curious about any scripture that was taken to be a command to baptize infants because I personally wasn't aware of any. And as a member who hopes to stick around, I didn't see anything wrong in stating what my understanding was.
No apology necessary since as you rightly thought, there was nothing "confrontational" in your questions, etc. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> All that Boanerges was trying to convey is that in the past there have been some rather "unruly" individuals on both sides of this perennial debate who chose not to curb their passions. I do think that most of them have either left, been removed or grumble silently to themselves when this topic arises.
And I have no desire to go off topic in this thread tossing around the pro's and con's of who should be baptized, but I will answer your question about the lack of a direct "command to baptize infants". There are plenty to be found in the O.T. IF you embrace covenantal continuity, i.e., the Covenant of Grace runs through all generations although the "sign" of that covenant has changed due to the coming of Christ Who ushered in its fullness. Thus the O.T. sign of circumcision has been duly replaced by baptism; the N.T. administrative sign.
And one last word here, since you are new. There are some of us here, I being one, who do not believe that a baptized infant is to be presumed, elect, regenerate, saved, etc. Likewise, I do not assume that any adult is, elect, regenerate, saved, etc., on the basis of their having been baptized. Simply put, Baptism doesn't save. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Enjoy a long and prosperous stay on the Board!! Ooooh, one more thing.... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" /> I would question Boanerges' unsubstantiated remark that this Board is predominately Paedobaptist. If I had to guess, being familiar with everyone who has registered here, I would have to say it is fairly evenly split, with perhaps the balance even going over to the Baptist camp. Perhaps that might help to explain the almost total lack of support we get. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />
In His Grace,
Last edited by CovenantInBlood; Sun Jul 31, 20055:58 PM.
Thank you for that response, Pilgrim. And I will look for an opportunity to discuss this further outside this particular thread. I do not think my understanding is wholly different from Covenant Theology and would be interested in the sharpening effect of all the iron I see in this community.
"Nothing can be more insulting to God than to presume to examine His Word, professing a desire to learn His mind, when we have already settled to our own satisfaction what it will say." ~A.W. Pink
guidedbygrace said: I truly thank you for those links. They most assuredly confirmed my stance as a credobaptist.
Well as one to another I'm glad however, in case you didn't realize it we are in the land of the paedobaptist and that particular bit of discussion has been done and redone in these forums with no one changing their minds (for the most part). So to forestall any word fights, not to mention the fact that the discussion of whether we should or shouldn't baptize infants isn't really germane to the discussion at hand (its really more of a Lutheran vs Reformed view of infant baptism) I thought to steer you clear of this road you appear to desire to go down.
Actually more of a Lutheran vs paedobaptist Reformed. The Credobaptists see no command so naturally they do not baptize. The Paedobaptist Reform see a command but, contrary to the command they see, they do not baptize a dying infant even when it would cause no harm to the mother or the child, water is present, and there is a believing father to perform the baptism. Why?
speratus said: The Paedobaptist Reform see a command but, contrary to the command they see, they do not baptize a dying infant even when it would cause no harm to the mother or the child, water is present, and there is a believing father to perform the baptism. Why?
Because baptism doesn't save. There is no efficacy in baptism. Biblical Calvinists find no warrant for sarcedotalism in the Bible.
speratus said: The Paedobaptist Reform see a command but, contrary to the command they see, they do not baptize a dying infant even when it would cause no harm to the mother or the child, water is present, and there is a believing father to perform the baptism. Why?
Because baptism doesn't save. There is no efficacy in baptism. Biblical Calvinists find no warrant for sarcedotalism in the Bible.
But what does the efficacy in baptism have to do with the command to baptize? Biblical Lutherans baptize their children solely upon the command to baptize not upon the efficacy. The practices of both groups should be the same.
But what does the efficacy in baptism have to do with the command to baptize? Biblical Lutherans baptize their children solely upon the command to baptize not upon the efficacy. The practices of both groups should be the same.
You know I believe I have asked for this sometimes before but just in case I didn't: Speratus of the various synods of Lutheranism please give me examples of those that teach this. Bring out the Missouri Synod teachers that hold to this, or the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod teachers, anybody authorative. Because your not, and frankly I question your dogmatics.
Peter
If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
Is the Large Catechism of the Book of Concord authoritative enough for you? Would you consider Luther to be an authoritative Lutheran dogmatician?
Quote
Large Catechism, Of Infant Baptism Thus we do also in infant baptism. We bring the child in the conviction and hope that it believes, and we pray that God may grant it faith; but we do not baptize it upon that, but solely upon the command of God. Why so? Because we know that God does not lie. I and my neighbor and, in short, all men, may err and deceive, but the Word of God cannot err.
No its not. Because Speratus you treat it like a wax nose molding it to your use. I specified from the Lutheran Synods so put on your bifocals and read once again what I asked.
Quote
Bring out the Missouri Synod teachers that hold to this, or the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod teachers, anybody authoritative.
Someone from the Synods, Speratus or can't you?
Peter
If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
Wax nose? The man plainly says we baptize solely upon command not efficacy. If Missouri or Wisconsin synod teachers do not agree with this, they should reconsider their subscription to the Large Catechism. But, rather than spend hours on the internet determining whether or not they concur with Luther, I have asked WELS Q&A. I will post their answer as soon as I receive it.
I am still waiting for WELS Q&A to answer my question on whether or not we Lutherans baptize solely upon command of God as Luther clearly taught in the Large Catechism. I will post their reply if and when I receive it.
In the meantime, I found a WELS Q&A that states that, as confesssional Lutherans, we baptize infants with no infallible expectation that the child will receive the gift of faith and that we simply do what he told us to do.
Quote
Q: Given that infants are both sinful and have the ability to have saving faith as a result of baptism, is it possible for an infant to resist the grace offered in baptism and reject Christ and His atoning work somehow? Part of what inspires my question is hearing the testimonies of individuals who were baptized as infants, yet by their later words and actions displayed to everyone, including themselves, either no interest in spiritual things or even outright hostility until some future incident, however dramatic or ordinary, where they seem to appreciate relevance and power of the Gospel for the first time. This is often accompanied by a sudden and radical change in moral attitudes and lifestyle choices.
Those individuals themselves often insist that it was through that particular incident that they savingly believed and became citizens of heaven, and they reject any notion of a very imperfect but saving faith that they had since their baptism.
While I do not reject the power of Christian baptism, I am inclined to agree with the convictions these people have about their own personal redemption, however I would appreciate hearing your perspective as well.
A: We do not teach an irresistible grace or an irresistible working of the Holy Spirit through the gospel in word and sacrament. We therefore acknowledge that it is conceivable or sadly possible that an infant might somehow despise the gift of faith truly promised, offered, and given in baptism. On the other hand, we are well aware of the kind of confidence Galatians 3:26-27 expresses: "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." So we express confidence that the child believes but ultimately leave the matter with God and simply do what he told us to do--and trust his promises. Since Scripture does not provide additional information on this subject we hesitate to say any more. What Martin Luther wrote in his Large Catechism [under Infant Baptism, paragraph 52ff]is perhaps the best and clearest way to state what we believe: "Further, we say that we are not so much concerned to know whether the person baptized believes or not; for on that account Baptism does not become invalid; but everything depends on the Word and command of God. . . when the Word is added to the water, Baptism is valid, even though faith be lacking. For my faith does not make Baptism, but receives it. . . Even though infants did not believe, which, however, is not the case, yet their baptism as now shown would be valid, and no one should rebaptize them.
. . . How dare we think that God's Word and ordinance should be wrong and invalid because we make a wrong use of it? Therefore I say, if you did not believe, then believe now and say thus: The baptism indeed was right, but I, alas! did not receive it aright. . . Thus we do also in infant baptism. We bring the child in the conviction and hope that it believes, and we pray that God may grant it faith; but we do not baptize it upon that, but solely upon the command of God. Why so? Because we know that God does not lie. I and my neighbor, in short, all men, may err and deceive, but the Word of God cannot err."
The people whom you mention, who have significant religious experiences and thereafter give evidences of saving faith in Christ, are not wrong to thank and praise God for the Holy Spirit's saving work later in their lives. They are wrong if they despise or belittle their baptisms, however, since God's command and promises connected to baptism remain firm.
Arminianism, inconsistency, and just outright false doctrine, as already has been revealed in other posts, seems to prevade this stinking thinking.
Double Talk
Quote
We do not teach an irresistible grace or an irresistible working of the Holy Spirit …..
We bring the child in the conviction and hope that it believes, and we pray that God may grant it faith …. when the Word is added to the water, Baptism is valid, even though faith be lacking…. Even though infants did not believe, which, however, is not the case,
Boanerges said: Well you've proven your point that you baptize infants for all the wrong reasons.
I hope that you at least understand that confessional Lutherans do not baptize dying infants in order that we may save them but solely upon the command of God. God alone works faith through emergency baptism when and where He pleases (elect children dying infancy).
Of course, there are Lutherans who teach that emergency baptism gives the dying infant an automatic ticket to heaven. And there are Baptists who teach that all dying infants of believers are automatically sent to heaven. Let's not confuse confessional Lutheran (BOC) or confessional Baptist(LBC) teachings with non-confessional teachings.
Arminianism, inconsistency, and just outright false doctrine, as already has been revealed in other posts, seems to prevade this stinking thinking.
Double Talk
Quote
We do not teach an irresistible grace or an irresistible working of the Holy Spirit …..
We bring the child in the conviction and hope that it believes, and we pray that God may grant it faith …. when the Word is added to the water, Baptism is valid, even though faith be lacking…. Even though infants did not believe, which, however, is not the case,
There is no Arminianism, inconsistency, or false doctrine. The WELS Q&A statement is poorly wordly (you didn't complete the sentence which perhaps even a Reform theologian might agree?); however, I think I understand what they are trying to say.
The fact that a baby may reject the saving grace freely offered by God to all babies in the sacrament of baptism is not because that particular baby resists God more than any other baby. All babies are equally and totally in bondage to sin, spiritually dead, and are not free to either accept or reject the grace offered by God in the sacrament. All babies resist the grace of God offered in baptism until and unless they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit overcomes resistance to grace and makes unwilling babies willing but only when and where God pleases.
With regard to your Large Catechism citation, yes, Luther is teaching presumptive baby belief in baptism ("We bring the child in the conviction and hope that it believe"). As he says elsewhere, if any baptism (regeneration) is certain, it is an infant baptism because infants don't hypocritically ask to be baptized. But he is not teaching infallible baby belief ("we pray that God may grant it faith"). He is teaching infallible validity of baptism because the validity of baptism is based upon the word of God not the faith of men or babies.
Speratus, though it was “your post,” for your sake I will quote the whole phrase, so you can see it more clearly:
Quote
We do not teach an irresistible grace or an irresistible working of the Holy Spirit through the gospel in word and sacrament. We therefore acknowledge that it is conceivable or sadly possible that an infant might somehow despise the gift of faith truly promised, offered, and given in baptism.
Now if faith is truly given "in" baptism and later genuinely rejected this is (1) Arminianism (2) inconsistent with the rest of the paragraph as posted afore by you, (3) and presents a false doctrine--heresy.
Speratus, faith (saving faith, whether active or passive) is not normally given at baptism (of course, I allow for those occurrences where God sees fit to give such). <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bingo.gif" alt="" />
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
Because Speratus you treat it like a wax nose molding it to your use. I specified from the Lutheran Synods so put on your bifocals and read once again what I asked. 