An Ongoing Study/Debate of the New Testament

[Wittenberger]

Another LCMS statement on Baptism:

Infant Baptism History

Q: You say that infant baptism is ONE way of salvation. Since this practice was unknown in the New
Testament or even the early Catholic Church, it is speculative. The Bible says that repentance is a prerequisite
for faith. I repented at five, so it can be early, but not in someone's arms.

A: Infants are included in "all nations" who are to be baptized (Matt. 28:19). Certainly they were
included in Peter's Pentecost exhortation in Acts 2:38, 39: "Repent and be baptized everyone one of
you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins....The promise is for you and your
children and for all who are far off–for all whom the Lord our God will call."
Whole households, everyone in the family, were baptized in the beginning of New Testament times,
which in all probability included infants (Acts 16:15 and 33). [The "household" formula used here by
Luke has Old Testament precedent, with special reference also to small children, as for example in 1
Sam. 22:16, 19; see Joachim Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, 22-23.] In Romans 6,
the Holy Spirit tells us in the Word that in Baptism we have been united with Jesus' death and
resurrection–regenerated, dying to sin and rising to new life. That happens to infants when baptized
(Gal. 3:27). "For as many of you who have been baptized have put on Christ." Baptism through the Word
creates the faith necessary to receive salvation for infants. Infants can have faith. In Mark 10:14 Jesus
said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to
such as these." The Greek word in this text is "paidia" which means babes in arms. Infants can belong to
the kingdom of God. "From the lips of children and infants, You have ordained praise...." Psalm 8:2. "Yet
You brought me out of the womb, You made me trust in You even at my mother's breast" Psalm 22:9.

From the beginning of New Testament Christianity at Pentecost to our time, unbroken and
uninterrupted, the Church has baptized babies. Polycarp (69-155 AD), a disciple of the Apostle John, was
baptized as an infant. Justin Martyr (100-166 AD) of the next generation, about the year 150 AD, states
in his Dialog with Trypho The Jew that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament." Irenaeus
(130-200 AD) writes in Against Heresies II 22:4 that Jesus came to save all through means of Himself --
all, I say, who through Him are born again to God – infants and children, boys and youth, and old men."
Similar expressions are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185-254 AD) and Cyprian (215-258
AD), and at the Council of Carthage in 254 where the 66 bishops stated: "We ought not hinder any
person from Baptism and the grace of God....especially infants....those newly born." Origen wrote in his
Commentary on Romans 5:9: "For this also it was that the Church had from the Apostles a tradition to
give baptism even to infants." Origen also wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: "Infants are to be baptized for
the remission of sins." Cyprian's reply to a bishop who wrote to him regarding the baptism of infants
stated: "Should we wait until the 8th day as did the Jews in the circumcision? No, the child should be
baptized as soon as it is born."

Augustine (354-430 AD) wrote in De Genesi Ad Literam, 10:39 declared, "The custom of our mother
Church in baptizing infants must not be counted needless, nor believed to be other than a tradition of
the Apostles." Augustine further states: "...the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because
it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they cannot possibly be vivified in Christ. In 517 AD, 10 rules of
discipline were framed for the Church in Spain. The fifth rule states that "...in case infants were ill...if
they were offered, to baptize them, even though it were the day that they were born...such was to be
done." (The History of Baptism by Robert Robinson, London, Thomas Knott, 1790, p.269)
Page 8 of 14

This pattern of baptizing infants remained in Christianity through the Dark and Middle Ages until
modern times. In the 1500 years from the time of Christ to the Protestant Reformation, the only
bonafide opponent to infant Baptism was the heretic Tertullian (160-215 AD) who de facto denied
original sin. Then in the 1520s the Christian Church experienced opposition specifically to infant Baptism
under the influence of Thomas Muenzer and other fanatics who opposed both civil and religious
authority, original sin and human concupiscence. Thomas' opposition was then embraced by a
considerable number of Swiss, German and Dutch Anabaptists. This brought about strong warning and
renunciation by the Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Reformed alike. It was considered a shameless
affront to what had been practiced in each generation since Christ's command in the Great Commission
(Matt. 28:18-20) to baptize all nations irrespective of age.

Historical excerpts are from "Infant Baptism in
Early Church History," by Dr. Dennis Kastens in Issues Etc. Journal, Spring 1997, Vol. 2, No. 3.

Usage: We urge you to contact an LCMS pastor in your area for more in-depth discussion.

Published by: LCMS Church Information Center
©The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
1333 S. Kirkwood Road, St. Louis, MO 63122-7295
888-843-5267 • infocenter@lcms.org • www.lcms.org/faqs
Return to

 

[Wittenberger]

Another LCMS statement on Baptism:

Why baptize infants?

Q: Why do Lutherans baptize infants?

A: Lutherans baptize infants because of what the Bible teaches regarding:
1.) God's command to baptize (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). There is not a single passage in
Scripture which instructs us not to baptize for reasons of age, race, or gender. On the contrary, the divine
commands to baptize in Scripture are all universal in nature. On the basis of these commands, the Christian church
has baptized infants from the earliest days of its history. Since those baptized are also to be instructed in the
Christian faith, (Matt. 28:20), the church baptizes infants only where there is the assurance that parents or spiritual
guardians will nurture the faith of the one baptized through continued teaching of God's Word.

2.) Our need for Baptism (Psalm 51; 5; John 3:5-7; Acts 2:38; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:3-4). According to the Bible,
all people–including infants–are sinful and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). King David confesses, "I
was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps. 51:5). Like adults, infants die–sure proof
that they too are under the curse of sin and death. According to the Bible, Baptism (somewhat like Old Testament
circumcision, administered to 8-day-old-babies–see Col. 2:11-12) is God's gracious way of washing away our sins–
even the sins of infants–without any help or cooperation on our part. It is a wonderful gift of a loving and gracious
God.

3.) God's promises and power (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; John 3:5-7; Titus 3:5-6; Galatians
3:26-27; Romans 6:1-4; Colossians 2;11-12; Ephesians 5:25-26; 1 Corinthians 12:13).

Those churches which deny
Baptism to infants usually do so because they have a wrong understanding of Baptism. They see Baptism as
something we do (e.g., a public profession of faith, etc.) rather than seeing it as something that God does for us
and in us. None of the passages listed above, nor any passage in Scripture, describes Baptism as "our work" or as
"our public confession of faith." Instead, these passages describe Baptism as a gracious and powerful work of God
through which He miraculously (though through very "ordinary" means) washes away our sins by applying to us
the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection (Acts 2:38-39; Acts 22:16), gives us a new birth in which we
"cooperate" just as little as we did in our first birth (John 3:5-7), clothes us in Christ's righteousness (Gal. 3:26-27),
gives us the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5-6), saves us (1 Peter 3:21), buries us and raises us up with Christ as new creatures
(Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12), makes us holy in God's sight (Eph. 5: 25-26) and incorporates us into the body of Christ (1
Cor. 12:13).

All of this, according to the Bible, happens in Baptism, and all of it is God's doing, not ours. The
promises and power of Baptism are extended to all in Scripture–including infants–and are available to all. Parents
and sponsors then have the privilege and responsibility of nurturing the baptized child in God's love and in His
Word so that he or she may know and continue to enjoy the wonderful blessings of Baptism throughout his or her
life.

Usage: We urge you to contact an LCMS pastor in your area for more in-depth discussion.

Published by: LCMS Church Information Center
©The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
1333 S. Kirkwood Road, St. Louis, MO 63122-7295
888-843-5267 • infocenter@lcms.org • www.lcms.org/faqs
Return to

 

[Wittenberger]

Last LCMS statement (at least for tonight )

God chose us?

Q: I understand that God chose those for salvation before the very foundation of the world. The Bible does
not say that there are those who are chosen and that there are those who are not. So, does that mean then
that God chose everyone to be saved before the foundation of the world and therefore it is man's choice
whether he will accept God's saving grace or not? However, one cannot come into God's grace by himself,
but by the Holy Spirit "leading" him unto salvation. Is that the correct interpretation? I am confused by the
fact that we were chosen by God before the foundation of the world, yet the very action of choosing can
mean that there were those who were not chosen. I know that God wishes everyone to be saved. Can you
help me?

A: The question you are wrestling with is really the question, "Why are some saved and not others?"
Theologians throughout history have referred to this question as the "crux theologorum" ("the cross of the
theologians") because of the difficulty (and from the Lutheran perspective, the impossibility) of giving an
answer to this question which is satisfactory to our human reason.
Some answer this question by pointing to man's "free will"--only those are saved who "choose" to be saved.
Lutherans reject this answer as unscriptural because according to the Bible even man's will is "dead" and
powerless to "choose" God and his grace in Christ. We are saved not because we "choose" to be saved but
because the Holy Spirit works faith in our heart through the Gospel (even faith is a gift!). Others answer this
question by pointing to God's sovereign will: God himself predestines from eternity some to be saved and
others to be damned. Lutherans reject this answer as unscriptural because according to the Bible God
sincerely desires all to be saved and has predestined no one to damnation.

So how do Lutherans answer this question? The answer is that Lutherans do not try to answer it, because (we
believe) the Bible itself does not provide an answer to this question that is comprehensible to human reason.
Lutherans affirm, with Scripture, that whoever is saved is saved by God's grace alone, a grace so sure that it
excludes all human "action" and "choice" but rather rests on the foundation of God's action in Christ and his
"choice" (predestination) from before the beginning of time. Lutherans also affirm, with Scripture, that those
who are damned are damned not by God's "choice" but on account of their own human sin and rebellion and
unbelief. From a human perspective, there is no "rational" or "logical" way to put these two truths together.

Lutherans believe and confess them not because they are "rational" and "logical," but because this is what
we find taught in Scripture.
For a further discussion of this issue, you may want to read Of the Election of Grace in the Brief Statement of
the LCMS, and/or Articles II and XI in the Formula of Concord (contained in the Book of Concord, the Lutheran
Confessions).

Usage: We urge you to contact an LCMS pastor in your area for more in-depth discussion.

Published by: LCMS Church Information Center
©The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
1333 S. Kirkwood Road, St. Louis, MO 63122-7295
888-843-5267 • infocenter@lcms.org • www.lcms.org/faqs
Return to

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I didn't realize proselytism was allowed on this forum.

 

[The Biblicist]

.

We baptize the infants of believers because we believe that God commands us to.

You said He commands you to baptize infants! In what book, chapter and verse can that command be found please? No such verse exists and you know it.

.If God has selected an infant who is baptized to be one of the Elect, then when that child grows up, the faith that God gave him at the time of His choosing (we believe at his baptism), will be evident and He will believe.

There is not one solitary text in scripture that says God gives faith at the baptism of ANY of His elect much less is there any text that commands to baptize infants. That is your Lutheran imagination without a single verse of scripture to support it. Book, chapter and verse please?

. If the child that was baptized is NOT one of the Elect, the baptism will have no effect, he will not have faith, will not produce good works and he will not be saved.

Here is your problem. Election was before the world began and prior to John the Baptist there was no Christian baptism and prior to Abraham there was no cirucumcision but prior to Abraham there were the elect (Abel, Seth, Noah, Shem, Job, etc.) but there was neither cirucumcision or baptism but there was remission of sins (Acts 10:43). External rites have NOTHING to do with LITERAL regeneration/remission of sins whatsoever.

.Lutherans do NOT believe that all persons who undergo infant baptism are saved! Salvation must always be received by faith, but the faith is a gift from God, not produced by the spiritually dead sinner.

You teach TWO different ways of salvation for the elect when the Bible demands there is only ONE way, ONE gospel, ONE Savior and all other ways are accursed and perversions of the gospel (Mt. 7:13-14; Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; 10:43; Gal. 1:8-9) and that one way is exemplied by a PRE-circumcised Abraham (Rom. 4:9-11). You teach a false gospel!

.You sound like a Calviinist,

Any truth Calvin had came from the scripture not from Calvin." I am a "Biblicist" and repudiate Calvin and Luther and Rome.


So explain (in layman's terms) when is it that someone is saved?[/QUOTE]

Objectively they are saved before the world began according to the eternal purpose of God "in Christ."

Objectively they are redeemed by the life and death of Christ - this is the objective legal provision for redemption.

Subjectively they are saved at the point of regeneration which is completed in conversion to the gospel. There is no such thing as a regenerated UNbeliever OR an UNregenerated believer. Regeneration is the cause and coversion is the immediate and direct consequence. In regeneration the gospel becomes the CREATIVE command of God (2 Cor. 4:6; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23,25; Romans 10:17 "rhema").

. When they make a decision or when God makes a decision to quicken them?

When God quickens them by His will they make a decision by the power of the holy Spirit (chosen to salvation THROUGH sanctification of the Spirit) to beleive the truth of the gospel (AND the belief of the truth - 2 Thes.2:13). Where there is no belief of the truth there is no regeneration by the Holy Spirit REGARDLESS OF THE AGE of the elect as God hath chose ALL THE ELECT to salvation the very same way "God hath chosen you TO salvation through sanctification of the Spirit AND belief of the truth" - 2 Thes. 2:13.

.If you believe, as do most Calvinists, that God chose you by his own criteria, before the world existed, then why can't he "quicken" an infant just as "quickens" an adult?

Because that criteria is repeatedly revealed in the scriptures to be by "sanctification of the Spirit AND belief of the truth" and "the gospel is the power of salvation" so that ALL COVENANT people "know" God by direct revelation and do not need to be CATECHIZED or CONFIRMED by men and living infants baptized or unbaptized need to be taught by men to know God.

 

[The Biblicist]

If you want to state your own opinion on that topic that is fine. However, in my opinion what you are doing is violating the rules of this forum. You are not allowed to proselyte on the forum and placing a catechism of a false church on this forum is an attempt to proselyte.

Another LCMS statement on Baptism:

Why baptize infants?

Q: Why do Lutherans baptize infants?

A: Lutherans baptize infants because of what the Bible teaches regarding:
1.) God's command to baptize (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). There is not a single passage in
Scripture which instructs us not to baptize for reasons of age, race, or gender. On the contrary, the divine
commands to baptize in Scripture are all universal in nature. On the basis of these commands, the Christian church
has baptized infants from the earliest days of its history. Since those baptized are also to be instructed in the
Christian faith, (Matt. 28:20), the church baptizes infants only where there is the assurance that parents or spiritual
guardians will nurture the faith of the one baptized through continued teaching of God's Word.

2.) Our need for Baptism (Psalm 51; 5; John 3:5-7; Acts 2:38; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:3-4). According to the Bible,
all people–including infants–are sinful and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). King David confesses, "I
was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps. 51:5). Like adults, infants die–sure proof
that they too are under the curse of sin and death. According to the Bible, Baptism (somewhat like Old Testament
circumcision, administered to 8-day-old-babies–see Col. 2:11-12) is God's gracious way of washing away our sins–
even the sins of infants–without any help or cooperation on our part. It is a wonderful gift of a loving and gracious
God.

3.) God's promises and power (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; John 3:5-7; Titus 3:5-6; Galatians
3:26-27; Romans 6:1-4; Colossians 2;11-12; Ephesians 5:25-26; 1 Corinthians 12:13).

Those churches which deny
Baptism to infants usually do so because they have a wrong understanding of Baptism. They see Baptism as
something we do (e.g., a public profession of faith, etc.) rather than seeing it as something that God does for us
and in us. None of the passages listed above, nor any passage in Scripture, describes Baptism as "our work" or as
"our public confession of faith." Instead, these passages describe Baptism as a gracious and powerful work of God
through which He miraculously (though through very "ordinary" means) washes away our sins by applying to us
the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection (Acts 2:38-39; Acts 22:16), gives us a new birth in which we
"cooperate" just as little as we did in our first birth (John 3:5-7), clothes us in Christ's righteousness (Gal. 3:26-27),
gives us the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5-6), saves us (1 Peter 3:21), buries us and raises us up with Christ as new creatures
(Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12), makes us holy in God's sight (Eph. 5: 25-26) and incorporates us into the body of Christ (1
Cor. 12:13).

All of this, according to the Bible, happens in Baptism, and all of it is God's doing, not ours. The
promises and power of Baptism are extended to all in Scripture–including infants–and are available to all. Parents
and sponsors then have the privilege and responsibility of nurturing the baptized child in God's love and in His
Word so that he or she may know and continue to enjoy the wonderful blessings of Baptism throughout his or her
life.

Usage: We urge you to contact an LCMS pastor in your area for more in-depth discussion.

Published by: LCMS Church Information Center
©The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
1333 S. Kirkwood Road, St. Louis, MO 63122-7295
888-843-5267 • infocenter@lcms.org • www.lcms.org/faqs
Return to

 

[The Biblicist]

Another LCMS statement on Baptism:

Infant Baptism History

Q: You say that infant baptism is ONE way of salvation. Since this practice was unknown in the New
Testament or even the early Catholic Church, it is speculative. The Bible says that repentance is a prerequisite
for faith. I repented at five, so it can be early, but not in someone's arms.

A: Infants are included in "all nations" who are to be baptized (Matt. 28:19).

This is a lie! The command to baptize is in regard to "them" who first respond to the "go" or preaching of the gospel and that order is given precisely in Mark 16:15-16 - (1) go preach the gospel; (3) only those who believe are then baptized. That excludes infants as infants have no way to express to the administrator of baptism they have believed.

Certainly they were
included in Peter's Pentecost exhortation in Acts 2:38, 39: "Repent and be baptized everyone one of
you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins....The promise is for you and your
children and for all who are far off–for all whom the Lord our God will call."

Another lie of the Devil! The Greek grammar clearly demands that baptism is administered in this text to those who first "repent" and receive the Word followed by baptism as clearly stated in verse 40 "as many as RECEIVED the word were baptized."

Whole households, everyone in the family, were baptized in the beginning of New Testament times,
which in all probability included infants (Acts 16:15 and 33). [The "household" formula used here by
Luke has Old Testament precedent, with special reference also to small children,

Another lie of the Devil! The context demonstrates in each case the "household" members were old enough to personally express faith in the Gospel.

1. Those in the household of Lydia are called "brethren"
2. Those in the household of the Jailor are said to have "beleived"

as for example in 1
Sam. 22:16, 19; see Joachim Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, 22-23.]

Another lie! There are no records of infant baptism in the first or second century as it slowly arose in the third century.

In Romans 6,
the Holy Spirit tells us in the Word that in Baptism we have been united with Jesus' death and
resurrection–regenerated, dying to sin and rising to new life.

Another falsehood! The doctrine of justification by faith without works has been established in Romans 3:24-5:21. In Roman 6:1 Paul asks if that doctrine encourages sin. His immediate answer is "God forbid."

He then addresses the readers, who are baptized believers in the congregations at Rome and tells them that in the public act of baptism they identified with the death of Christ to sin as well as with his resurrection and his point is that there is no such person who is justified by faith that is not also regenerated by the power of the Spirit of God who raised Christ from the grave and baptism provides the visible and obvious example that both are identified with by the believer in a true conversion experience.

He does not say they were baptized IN ORDER to become dead to sin and spiritually alive but he is declaring that is what they identified with in their baptism.

That happens to infants when baptized
(Gal. 3:27). "For as many of you who have been baptized have put on Christ."

Another lie of the devil. Galatians 3:27 says that baptism is how the beleiver who has been justified by faith without works (Gal. 2:20-3:26) PUTS ON Christ publicly. The Greek term translated "put on" refers to a coat that one puts on. He goes on to illustrate this by the common custom of the cultures when an heir became of age he DECLARED himself of age by putting on a white toga. He did not put it on in order to become of age, but BECAUSE OF he had already come to age. He did not put it on in order to become the heir but because he was the heir.

Baptism through the Word
creates the faith necessary to receive salvation for infants. Infants can have faith.

Another outright lie! Book, chapter and verse please?

In Mark 10:14 Jesus
said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to
such as these." The Greek word in this text is "paidia" which means babes in arms.

The same term "paidai" is used in the New Testament to describe older children and to describe all "children of God". This text has nothing to say about baptism or about how children are saved or when they are saved. Fertile heretical imagination at work.

Infants can belong to
the kingdom of God. "From the lips of children and infants, You have ordained praise...." Psalm 8:2. "Yet
You brought me out of the womb, You made me trust in You even at my mother's breast" Psalm 22:9.

The first is applied in the New Testament to all children of God. The second is a Messanic Psalm concerning Jesus Christ who was born without a sinful nature. David's hands and feet were not peirced. This Psalm is quoted by Christ on the cross and it describe Christ not infants or men in general! Obvious mishandling of God's Word.

From the beginning of New Testament Christianity at Pentecost to our time, unbroken and
uninterrupted, the Church has baptized babies.

This is an outright lie as there is absolutely no evidence in either the first or second century of infant baptism.

Polycarp (69-155 AD), a disciple of the Apostle John, was
baptized as an infant.

No such record exists. Such is INFERRED not stated.

Justin Martyr (100-166 AD) of the next generation, about the year 150 AD, states
in his Dialog with Trypho The Jew that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament."

Another unwarranted inference as we also beleive that circumcision and baptism are types of regeneration.

Irenaeus
(130-200 AD) writes in Against Heresies II 22:4 that Jesus came to save all through means of Himself --
all, I say, who through Him are born again to God – infants and children, boys and youth, and old men."

He did not say "who through Him are baptized" but who are "born again to God." In fact the context of this statement refers to his divine appointment as the Second Adam or federal head for the human race - "not despising or evading any CONDITION OF HUMANITY, nor settting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself." The point he is making is that Christ came to fulfill what Adam failed in order save the human race from sin and that salvation included human beings from all age groups. He is not referring to when or how they are born again but only the fact that his substitutionary work secured salvation of all age groups.

Similar expressions are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185-254 AD) and Cyprian (215-258
AD), and at the Council of Carthage in 254 where the 66 bishops stated: "We ought not hinder any.....(The History of Baptism by Robert Robinson, London, Thomas Knott, 1790, p.269)

The ECF's are the record of apostasy selectively preserved by the Apostate Roman Catholic Church who enforce their apostasy by the sword shedding the blood of all who opposed them through their secular arm.

This pattern of baptizing infants remained in Christianity through the Dark and Middle Ages until
modern times.

Among Romish congregations but opposed by many groups external to Rome who were persecuted by Rome.

In the 1500 years from the time of Christ to the Protestant Reformation, the only
bonafide opponent to infant Baptism was the heretic Tertullian (160-215 AD) who de facto denied
original sin.

False! Many Christian movements existed in this period who opposed Rome and infant baptism. Tertullian did not oppose original sin. He was opposing Gnosticism that claimed the LITERAL flesh was evil. He denied that our LITERAL flesh was evil but rather "flesh" used by Paul referred to our sinful nature.

Tertullian explicitly said, "Every soul, then, by reason of its birth, has its nature in Adam until is born again in Christ."

 

[The Biblicist]

Here is the bottom line. All that you post on this subject are either based upon silence, inference or proof texting.

I have yet to find one sacramentalist that will join in debate on the very passage of scripture that is given by Divine design to directly address this issue in a doctrinal and systematic fashion - Romans 3:24-5:2.

TS and others don't last long because their interpretations are easily refuted and they flee quickly. If I were you and I really believed what you believe I would welcome the opportunity to debate on the very passage in the New Testament dedicated to that very subject - Romans 3:24-5:2 - instead of trying to defend my position on silence, inferences and other easily defeated proof texting.

Come one in and give it a try and let's see where the Bible really stands on this issue as Paul directly deals with the very doctrine you are trying to defend. :jesus:

 

[The Biblicist]

Another LCMS statement on Baptism:

Why baptize infants?

Q: Why do Lutherans baptize infants?

A: Lutherans baptize infants because of what the Bible teaches regarding:
1.) God's command to baptize (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). There is not a single passage in
Scripture which instructs us not to baptize for reasons of age, race, or gender. On the contrary, the divine
commands to baptize in Scripture are all universal in nature.

That is simply an outright lie. None of these scriptures provide a context of universal application for baptism. Not one of them. All of them are placed in a context of baptism FOLLOWING repentance and faith in the gospel.

Look how they conveniently omit pivot texts that contextually deny their premise. They don't include Mark 16:15 with either Mark 16:16 or with Matthew 28:19-20. They don't include the actual application of Matthew 28:19-20 by referencing Acts 2:40-41. They don't point out that "repent" precedes "be baptized" and is confirmed by Acts 2:40. No they proof text out of context as that is the only possible way to support their false doctrine by eisgesis. This alone is sufficient to invalidate the rest of their argument below.

has baptized infants from the earliest days of its history.

That is simply false. The new Testament records NO EXAMPLES and NO PRECEPTS commanding it. In the first volume of the Antenicene Fathers one must grasp at straws drawing unwarranted inferrerences and reading into the writings what is simply not there.

Since those baptized are also to be instructed in the
Christian faith, (Matt. 28:20), the church baptizes infants only where there is the assurance that parents or spiritual
guardians will nurture the faith of the one baptized through continued teaching of God's Word.

The very character of the New Covenant denies the need to teach any of the covenant people to know God (Jer. 31:38; Heb. 8) because from the very "least" of them already know God by experiential relationship through new birth. Matthew 28:20 in context refers only to those who already beleived in the gospel as the paralell accounts prove (Mk. 16:15-16) and the first administration proves (Acts 2:40). So this is an outright lie.

2.) Our need for Baptism (Psalm 51; 5; John 3:5-7; Acts 2:38; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:3-4). According to the Bible,
all people–including infants–are sinful and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). King David confesses, "I
was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps. 51:5). Like adults, infants die–sure proof
that they too are under the curse of sin and death. According to the Bible, Baptism (somewhat like Old Testament
circumcision, administered to 8-day-old-babies–see Col. 2:11-12) is God's gracious way of washing away our sins–
even the sins of infants–without any help or cooperation on our part. It is a wonderful gift of a loving and gracious
God.

First, they teach TWO different ways of salvation. There can be no salvation apart from remission of sins and yet they teach it can be remitted by two different ways. They admit that unbaptized infants can receive remission of sins at death while infants can receive it BEFORE faith through baptism and adults AFTER faith in baptism. There has been only one way to receive remission of sins and that is by faith whether dying infant or living infant (2 Thes. 2:13) as God has had no other means to remit sins but one (Acts 10:43; 15:1-10).

Second, no one denies that baptism remits sins. The issue is HOW? The ONE way of salvation prohibits it is LITERAL (Heb. 10:1-4). It is fugurative or like a "shadow" providing only the external "FORM" but empty of any actual substance because types are not designed to convey anything but a visible FORM of the truth as a witness (Rom. 4:11; Heb. 10:1-4).

3.) God's promises and power (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; John 3:5-7; Titus 3:5-6; Galatians
3:26-27; Romans 6:1-4; Colossians 2;11-12; Ephesians 5:25-26; 1 Corinthians 12:13).

Merely listing proof texts taken out of context proves nothing.

Those churches which deny
Baptism to infants usually do so because they have a wrong understanding of Baptism. They see Baptism as
something we do (e.g., a public profession of faith, etc.) rather than seeing it as something that God does for us
and in us.

Here is a clear admission of "another gospel." What did God do before baptism? What did God do before circumcision? It is the PRE-circumcised Abraham that is the example for ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH both before circumcision and after it. God has only one way to be saved for dying infants or for living and that is "sanctification by the Spirit AND belief of the truth" and that is the consistent prerequisite ALWAYS presented in the New Testament for baptism.

None of the passages listed above, nor any passage in Scripture, describes Baptism as "our work" or as
"our public confession of faith."

That is because they do not understand what a "good" work is! A "good work" are those things we do to comply with the commandments of God AS SAVED people because lost people are spiritually dead and cannot do anything "good" (Rom. 3:9-20). We must first be "created in Christ Jesus" BEFORE "good works" - Eph. 2:10. Baptism in a "good" work performed by another person upon our person.

According to this sacramental nonsense baptism regenerates and so the subjects of baptism are all spiritual dead unregenerates who can neither repent or believe and yet the scriptures consistently require repentance and faith PRIOR TO baptism (Acts 2:38, 40; Mk. 16:15-16; Acts 8:35-37; etc.).

 

[Wittenberger]

You said He commands you to baptize infants! In what book, chapter and verse can that command be found please? No such verse exists and you know it.





There is not one solitary text in scripture that says God gives faith at the baptism of ANY of His elect much less is there any text that commands to baptize infants. That is your Lutheran imagination without a single verse of scripture to support it. Book, chapter and verse please?




Here is your problem. Election was before the world began and prior to John the Baptist there was no Christian baptism and prior to Abraham there was no cirucumcision but prior to Abraham there were the elect (Abel, Seth, Noah, Shem, Job, etc.) but there was neither cirucumcision or baptism but there was remission of sins (Acts 10:43). External rites have NOTHING to do with LITERAL regeneration/remission of sins whatsoever.




You teach TWO different ways of salvation for the elect when the Bible demands there is only ONE way, ONE gospel, ONE Savior and all other ways are accursed and perversions of the gospel (Mt. 7:13-14; Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; 10:43; Gal. 1:8-9) and that one way is exemplied by a PRE-circumcised Abraham (Rom. 4:9-11). You teach a false gospel!



Any truth Calvin had came from the scripture not from Calvin." I am a "Biblicist" and repudiate Calvin and Luther and Rome.


So explain (in layman's terms) when is it that someone is saved?

Objectively they are saved before the world began according to the eternal purpose of God "in Christ."

Objectively they are redeemed by the life and death of Christ - this is the objective legal provision for redemption.

Subjectively they are saved at the point of regeneration which is completed in conversion to the gospel. There is no such thing as a regenerated UNbeliever OR an UNregenerated believer. Regeneration is the cause and coversion is the immediate and direct consequence. In regeneration the gospel becomes the CREATIVE command of God (2 Cor. 4:6; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23,25; Romans 10:17 "rhema").





When God quickens them by His will they make a decision by the power of the holy Spirit (chosen to salvation THROUGH sanctification of the Spirit) to beleive the truth of the gospel (AND the belief of the truth - 2 Thes.2:13). Where there is no belief of the truth there is no regeneration by the Holy Spirit REGARDLESS OF THE AGE of the elect as God hath chose ALL THE ELECT to salvation the very same way "God hath chosen you TO salvation through sanctification of the Spirit AND belief of the truth" - 2 Thes. 2:13.




Because that criteria is repeatedly revealed in the scriptures to be by "sanctification of the Spirit AND belief of the truth" and "the gospel is the power of salvation" so that ALL COVENANT people "know" God by direct revelation and do not need to be CATECHIZED or CONFIRMED by men and living infants baptized or unbaptized need to be taught by men to know God.[/QUOTE]

Wittenberg's response: So if I understand you correctly, a person who is elect, who has been predestined to be saved and therefore WILL be saved, when God chooses to quicken him or make him spiritually alive, has a choice, is allowed to make a decision to accept or reject God?

So if he rejects God, after God has quickened him and made him spiritually alive, he then reverts to being spiritually alive?? So you do believe that one CAN lose his salvation.

You are either spiritually alive or spiritually dead, there is no such thing as half spiritually alive. If you have a choice and reject God, then you have lost your salvation and are once again spiritually dead.

There is not a solitary verse that commands us not to baptize infants?? There is not a solitary verse that tells us NOT to!! There is no age restriction given in the Great Commission!

 

[Wittenberger]

I didn't realize proselytism was allowed on this forum.

Michael, Michael! After all the accusations that are hurled at you, why make a statement like that about somone else.

I am presenting evidence to back up my statement that Lutherans do NOT believe that baptism is an automatic ticket into heaven. That's all.

You guys are very insecure in your beliefs if you are going to let a "Magisterial Protestant" rattle you.

 

[Wittenberger]

Here is the bottom line. All that you post on this subject are either based upon silence, inference or proof texting.

I have yet to find one sacramentalist that will join in debate on the very passage of scripture that is given by Divine design to directly address this issue in a doctrinal and systematic fashion - Romans 3:24-5:2.

TS and others don't last long because their interpretations are easily refuted and they flee quickly. If I were you and I really believed what you believe I would welcome the opportunity to debate on the very passage in the New Testament dedicated to that very subject - Romans 3:24-5:2 - instead of trying to defend my position on silence, inferences and other easily defeated proof texting.

Come one in and give it a try and let's see where the Bible really stands on this issue as Paul directly deals with the very doctrine you are trying to defend. :jesus:

When I get to the Book of Romans I will be happy to discuss this passage with you.

 

[Wittenberger]

That is simply an outright lie. None of these scriptures provide a context of universal application for baptism. Not one of them. All of them are placed in a context of baptism FOLLOWING repentance and faith in the gospel.

Look how they conveniently omit pivot texts that contextually deny their premise. They don't include Mark 16:15 with either Mark 16:16 or with Matthew 28:19-20. They don't include the actual application of Matthew 28:19-20 by referencing Acts 2:40-41. They don't point out that "repent" precedes "be baptized" and is confirmed by Acts 2:40. No they proof text out of context as that is the only possible way to support their false doctrine by eisgesis. This alone is sufficient to invalidate the rest of their argument below.






That is simply false. The new Testament records NO EXAMPLES and NO PRECEPTS commanding it. In the first volume of the Antenicene Fathers one must grasp at straws drawing unwarranted inferrerences and reading into the writings what is simply not there.



The very character of the New Covenant denies the need to teach any of the covenant people to know God (Jer. 31:38; Heb. 8) because from the very "least" of them already know God by experiential relationship through new birth. Matthew 28:20 in context refers only to those who already beleived in the gospel as the paralell accounts prove (Mk. 16:15-16) and the first administration proves (Acts 2:40). So this is an outright lie.



First, they teach TWO different ways of salvation. There can be no salvation apart from remission of sins and yet they teach it can be remitted by two different ways. They admit that unbaptized infants can receive remission of sins at death while infants can receive it BEFORE faith through baptism and adults AFTER faith in baptism. There has been only one way to receive remission of sins and that is by faith whether dying infant or living infant (2 Thes. 2:13) as God has had no other means to remit sins but one (Acts 10:43; 15:1-10).

Second, no one denies that baptism remits sins. The issue is HOW? The ONE way of salvation prohibits it is LITERAL (Heb. 10:1-4). It is fugurative or like a "shadow" providing only the external "FORM" but empty of any actual substance because types are not designed to convey anything but a visible FORM of the truth as a witness (Rom. 4:11; Heb. 10:1-4).



Merely listing proof texts taken out of context proves nothing.



Here is a clear admission of "another gospel." What did God do before baptism? What did God do before circumcision? It is the PRE-circumcised Abraham that is the example for ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH both before circumcision and after it. God has only one way to be saved for dying infants or for living and that is "sanctification by the Spirit AND belief of the truth" and that is the consistent prerequisite ALWAYS presented in the New Testament for baptism.





That is because they do not understand what a "good" work is! A "good work" are those things we do to comply with the commandments of God AS SAVED people because lost people are spiritually dead and cannot do anything "good" (Rom. 3:9-20). We must first be "created in Christ Jesus" BEFORE "good works" - Eph. 2:10. Baptism in a "good" work performed by another person upon our person.

According to this sacramental nonsense baptism regenerates and so the subjects of baptism are all spiritual dead unregenerates who can neither repent or believe and yet the scriptures consistently require repentance and faith PRIOR TO baptism (Acts 2:38, 40; Mk. 16:15-16; Acts 8:35-37; etc.).

In your theology you have two choices regarding baptism:

1. It is a public profession of faith (a statement no where to be found in Scripture).

2. It is our good work. We have no idea what its purpose is. We just do it because we are told to do so.

 

[Wittenberger]

The reason that Baptists and evangelicals do not see the truth of the orthodox Christian view of Baptism is because you have two different definitions for the same word:

Baptize: to immerse in water
Baptize: to immerse into the Holy Spirit

Where in the Bible does it ever say that we are immersed INTO the Holy Spirit? Isn't the Holy Spirit always "poured out"?

We are not baptized into the Holy Spirit but into CHRIST. We are immersed into the water into his death and raised out of the water into his resurrection.

If Baptists and evangelicals would consistently translate the Greek word "baptizo" as immersion into water your misunderstanding of the doctrine of Baptism would be easily resolved.

Something for Baptists and evangelicals to consider: There is not one single passage anywhere in Scripture that describes baptism as OUR act of doing something to please God. There is not one passage of Scripture that states that baptism is OUR public profession of faith.

Therefore, to maintain Baptist theology, Christians perform the first Christian "act" or good deed in obedience to God's command, but have no idea of its purpose.

Read the New Testament: Baptism, baptism, baptism, baptism...everywhere baptisms!!!
Are you really trying to tell us that God didn't bother to tell us what purpose this important Christian rite serves???

 

[The Biblicist]

In your theology you have two choices regarding baptism:

1. It is a public profession of faith (a statement no where to be found in Scripture).

2. It is our good work. We have no idea what its purpose is. We just do it because we are told to do so.

Your imagination at work again.

John explicitly says that God sent him to baptize in order that Christ would be made manifest and that mainfestation was by his submission to John's baptism. Hence, baptism manifests Christ.

Christ says that baptism "justifes" God (Lk. 7:29). God cannot be "made righteous" and therefore the only way baptism can justify God is that it is a declaration of His righteousness. However, you make baptism justify not God but sinners.

Circumcision under the Old Covenant does correspond with baptism under the New Covenant as a "sign" that follows but never produces regeneration - Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-13. Baptism is explictly described as a "figure" (1 Pet. 3:21) in keeping with a "sign."

Baptism provides a LIKENESS of Christ's death and burial and resurrection - Romans 6:4-5.

Baptism ALWAYS follows repentance and faith but NEVER precedes it in the New Testament and thus does not produce regeneration/conversion.

 

[The Biblicist]

Michael, Michael! After all the accusations that are hurled at you, why make a statement like that about somone else.

I am presenting evidence to back up my statement that Lutherans do NOT believe that baptism is an automatic ticket into heaven. That's all.

You guys are very insecure in your beliefs if you are going to let a "Magisterial Protestant" rattle you.

You are not telling the truth. The content of those quotations had nothing to do with what you claimed. They were designed to repudiate the Baptist position on baptism Biblically and historically while providing a defense for paedobaptism. Hence, you have lied!

 

[Wittenberger]

Your imagination at work again.

John explicitly says that God sent him to baptize in order that Christ would be made manifest and that mainfestation was by his submission to John's baptism. Hence, baptism manifests Christ.

Christ says that baptism "justifes" God (Lk. 7:29). God cannot be "made righteous" and therefore the only way baptism can justify God is that it is a declaration of His righteousness. However, you make baptism justify not God but sinners.

Circumcision under the Old Covenant does correspond with baptism under the New Covenant as a "sign" that follows but never produces regeneration - Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-13. Baptism is explictly described as a "figure" (1 Pet. 3:21) in keeping with a "sign."

Baptism provides a LIKENESS of Christ's death and burial and resurrection - Romans 6:4-5.

Baptism ALWAYS follows repentance and faith but NEVER precedes it in the New Testament and thus does not produce regeneration/conversion.

All your proof texts are inferences, mine are not.

"Baptism doth now save us."
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."
"baptism FOR the forgiveness of sins."
and on and on and on.

Not only does the plain, simple reading of the Bible prove the true meaning of Baptism, so do all the oral traditions commanded by the Apostle Paul that we should "keep"--contained in the writings of the Church Fathers---support our position.

Baptists and evangelicals are left out on a long, slender limb with a sixteenth century intepretation of God's Holy Word which NNE in previous human history had ever heard of before, and which depends on translating the Greek word "baptizo" inconsistently, by whim, to fit their new doctrine of works salvation: man making a decision for God instead of God making a decision for man.

 

[The Biblicist]

All your proof texts are inferences, mine are not.

Oh really? It is an inference that Peter says the like "FIGURE whereunto baptism doth now also save us" (1 Pet. 3:21)?

It is an inference that circucmision is called a "sign" that does not convey justification/remission of sins and is directly compared to baptism - Rom. 4:6-11/Col. 2:11-13???

It is an inference that John defines the purpose for God sending him to baptize is to make Christ manifest - Jn. 1:31???

It is an inference that John refused to baptize those who did not first manifest "fruits" of repentance thus requiring repentance and faith prior to baptism - Mt. 3:8; Jn. 3:36????

It is an inference that baptism in scripture ALWAYS follows repentance and faith in the gospel - Mk. 16:15-16; Acts 2:38, 40; etc.?????

It is an inference that Paul says in baptism we are buried and raised in the LIKENESS of Christ - Rom. 6:4-5????

What you have is ABSOLUTE SILENCE about any example or precept of infant baptism and that is the whole basis of your concept of baptism.

In regard to the statements about what baptism accomplishes we agree - there is no disagreement about what they say. The disagreement is what they MEAN and HOW baptism accomplishes those things and again you have SILENCE to support your INFERENCES while I have explicit denials (Rom. 4:11; Heb. 10:1-4) in regard to divine rites and their purposes along with all those so-called inferences of mine which flatly contradict your SILENCE (Rom. 4:11, Heb. 10:1-4; 1 Pet. 3:21; etc.).

 

[The Biblicist]

The reason that Baptists and evangelicals do not see the truth of the orthodox Christian view of Baptism is because you have two different definitions for the same word:

Baptize: to immerse in water
Baptize: to immerse into the Holy Spirit

That is not two different "definitions" as both mean "immerse." You mean two different applications of one meaning. Need to learn the difference between "definitions" and "applications."

Where in the Bible does it ever say that we are immersed INTO the Holy Spirit? Isn't the Holy Spirit always "poured out"?

It is repeated many times throughout the gospel using the very same Greek prepositon used with baptism "en" water (Mt. 3:11).

We are not baptized into the Holy Spirit but into CHRIST. We are immersed into the water into his death and raised out of the water into his resurrection.

In regard to baptism "en" Spirit Christ is the ADMINISTRATOR not the element - "HE shall baptize you en Spirit".

Whereas, in water baptism the Holy Spirit is the administrator (1 Cor. 3:5-11) as all human administrators work under his direction in preaching the gospel and baptizing believers and adding them to the congregations.

Something for Baptists and evangelicals to consider: There is not one single passage anywhere in Scripture that describes baptism as OUR act of doing something to please God. There is not one passage of Scripture that states that baptism is OUR public profession of faith.

Wrong! Matthew 28:19 is a command to "ye" to administer baptism to "them" and is thus part of those things Christ "commanded" them (Mt. 28:20) in observing "all things" given them. Hence, it is a "good work" BECAUSE lost people cannot do "good works" and God does not come down and administer baptism, or the Lord's Supper or any other ordinance.

Therefore, to maintain Baptist theology, Christians perform the first Christian "act" or good deed in obedience to God's command, but have no idea of its purpose.

Wrong! John established the purpose of baptism (Jn. 1:31) as did Christ (Lk. 7:29-30) as did Peter (1 Pet. 3:21) all of which deny and defy your doctrine of SILENCE!

1. It manifests Christ - Jn. 1:31
2. It is a "figure" of salvation - 1 Pet. 3:21
3. It justifies God - Lk. 7:29
4. It is the counsel of God -Lk. 7:30
5. It is the command of Christ for believers only - Mt. 28:19; Acts 2:40
6. It "fulfills all righteousnes" - Mt. 3:17
7. It provides a "LIKNESS" of Christ death, burial and resurrection
8. It is the prerequisite for church membership - Mt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:40; I Cor. 12:13
9. It is how one PUBLICLLY "puts on" Christ - Gal. 3:27 as illustrated in the common cultural custom of a legal heir - Gal. 4:1-4.

 

[The Biblicist]

In your theology you have two choices regarding baptism:.

Your view has only one choice and it is that the purpose of baptism is literally salvational but here is your big problem - that purpose cannot possibly be true for Christ and His submission to baptism! Don't we follow Christ in baptism?

Did Christ need remission of sins? regeneration? Justification?

The baptism of Christ fits the Baptist view.

1. First step of obedience as a Son of God not to become a Son of God
2. Not done to be cleansed from sins but done by one without sin
3. Obedience as the Son of God whereas unregenerate do not obey.
4. Obviously a symbolic act as it had no sacrament impact on Jesus Christ.
5. First step of obedience in PUBLIC SERVICE for God not first step in salvation.
6. Made manifest Christ (Jn. 1:31) and so does our baptism (Rom. 6:4-5; Gal. 3:27) as we "put on" Christ publicly in baptism.
7. Qualfied him as a member of his congregation composed of only baptized believers - Acts 1:21-22

How could Christ require baptism for all members in the congregation and not submit to baptism himself? How can they be a "disciple" of an unbaptized Master? How could they "follow" Him in baptism unless he too was baptized.

This is "Christ-ian" baptism, commanded to be observed by those already repentant believers in the gospel - ACts 2:40