Help with defending infant baptism

[fbl9]

Poco are you or are you not the sole decider of what scripture means?
Yet this is exactly what others thought and taught
So what is it Poco you came up with the idea that pococ is rightfully discerning scripture always if not God will tell you. Or did you get your beliefs from a man and as you read scripture God told you that the man was right?

The salvific effect of baptism is taught by the Catholic Church which even the Anabaptist taught, that, baptism was salvific in nature. The Anabaptists however severed that nature.
Even Luther taught baptism was salvific in nature that’s as close as you can get to saying Luther’s own teaching agreed with Anabaptists in regards to baptism.

 

[pocohombre]

pocohombre;10853590:

Luther did not stay with tradition. Luther Melancthon Chemnitz all affirmed not tradition of baptizing infants, but all affirmed that word and sacrament confer salvation. You have clearly not understood Lutheran doctrine. Doctrine btw defended by confessional Lutherans to this day.

The Table is the Body and Blood of Christ and saves sinners. Baptism saves by word and sacrament. The priest absolutely forgives the sins of the penitent.

Luther and those who followed him confirmed the salvific nature of the sacraments and appealed to not be excommunicated because they very specifically condemned the Platonic meanderings of Zwingli concerning the sacraments. It was not the Anabaptists Luther argued with only, Luther rejected Zwingli because Zwingli rejected the actual presence of Christ in the Sacrament. A rejection that stands to this day among confessional Lutherans. I do not know a single confessional Lutheran who thinks of himself as a “protestant” we are catholic and reject Calvin as a Unitarian who effectively rejected Christ in favor of defending the Father’s glory.

So you need to read your history better because the notion that Luther was pretty much a baptist who clung to tradition on this and that is dead wrong. Luther condemned those who taught what the baptists teach and that condemnation stands to this day. That is why confessional Lutheran Churches will not communes Baptists or Presbyterians because the doctrines taught by those churches concerning the sacraments and soteriology are held as heretical by the Augsburg Confession.

Thank you .Not sure I said he was a baptist,said he was at odds with them ,on other matters ,including baptism.

 

[pocohombre]

Poco are you or are you not the sole decider of what scripture means?

No God is sole decider.

The salvific effect of baptism is taught by the Catholic Church which even the Anabaptist taught, that, baptism was salvific in nature. The Anabaptists however severed that nature.
Even Luther taught baptism was salvific in nature that’s as close as you can get to saying Luther’s own teaching agreed with Anabaptists in regards to baptism.

does this concflict with post from bogey dog ? Not sure what you are saying of baptist belief .Just know they didn’t do infants.Not sure they said it was sacrament or spirit giving, as opposed to just sin remission.

 

[fbl9]

No God is sole decider.

does this concflict with post from bogey dog ? Not sure what you are saying of baptist belief .Just know they didn’t do infants.Not sure they said it was sacrament or spirit giving, as opposed to just sin remission.

Sorry got my heretics mixed up. Not really sure what the Anabaptists taught and don’t really care cause it was wrong any how.
God had already spoken regarding baptism before they showed up.

 

[bogeydogg]

bogeydogg;10857286:

Thank you .Not sure I said he was a baptist,said he was at odds with them ,on other matters ,including baptism.

You glossed over the entire meaning of the response. You clearly are a baptist (or something of the like) and your statement was that Luther had good ideas but stayed with tradition on some things. I was saying you are wrong about that. Luther was very much catholic about the sacraments and removing salvation from them would have been highest heresy to him.

So your statement that he stayed with tradition on some things is a total mischaracterization of Luther because the Book of Concord in general and the Augsburg Confession specifically condemns everything you have said about baptism. You cannot claim Luther as being part of your defense team because Luther would have said you are a heretic to be separated from the Church until you repent of your erroneous understanding of the sacraments.

That is why confessional Lutheran Churches to this day will not commune Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists or anyone else who deny that salvation comes through Word AND Sacrament.

 

[bogeydogg]

No God is sole decider.

does this concflict with post from bogey dog ? Not sure what you are saying of baptist belief .Just know they didn’t do infants.Not sure they said it was sacrament or spirit giving, as opposed to just sin remission.

You are confusing what modern day Baptists teach about baptism and what the Anabaptists taught about baptism. The Anabaptists did believe baptism carried salvation but that it was ineffectual for infants because they could not have made good confession. Modern day Baptists believe salvation comes by… well something… altar call, making a decision, inviting Jesus, making Jesus Lord, asking Jesus in… something about decisions, the heart and you initiating salvation and Jesus responding.

The Anabaptists would have said this is heresy… and they would have been right.

The problem is that the Anabaptists were re-baptizing believers which was a practice condemned by the Church in the late 4th C early 5th C because of the Donatists (who also believed baptism saved). Re-baptizing declares the work of the Holy Spirit to be of no effect and so also Christ’s work to be of no effect. For this reason they were condemned as heretics and ordered to submit to Church authority concerning the Sacraments.

However the issue with modern day Baptists is not that they merely re-baptize it is that they teach baptism is nothing at all and it is treated as initiation into church membership. I know people who have been baptized five, six times. In this practice they bear no semblance to the Anabaptists at all, and so fbl did not actually confuse his words, whether he meant to or not, and he did not actually contradict me.

The reason why is that baptism=basically nothing is so novel in the church that you will not find defense for it anywhere.

 

[panevino]

Not sure if its been mentioned but I value the image of Passover night and role / responsibility of the parents in the salvation of infants. This demonstrates a familial/covenental? entrance /commencement of the infants life in the family of God facilitated by the faith of the parents and the steps they had to take on the night.

Exodus 12:7-17
And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. 8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. 9 Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof. 10 And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.
11 And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the Lord 's passover. 12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord. 13 **And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: **and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. 14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. 15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel. 16 And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you. 17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.

The idea of the household above brings to mind Paul
1 Corinthians 1:16
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas…

 

[pocohombre]

Modern day Baptists believe salvation comes by… well something… altar call, making a decision, inviting Jesus, making Jesus Lord, asking Jesus in… something about decisions, the heart and you initiating salvation and Jesus responding.

Something? Well everybody does something .Jesus responding ? No, that is CC line.He must respond automatically when someone is water baptized. He must…You find this nowhere in the bible, not old or new testament . Anyways that is not baptist position that He responds. We respond to his love

 

[pocohombre]

The problem is that the Anabaptists were re-baptizing believers which was a practice condemned by the Church in the late 4th C early 5th C because of the Donatists (who also believed baptism saved). Re-baptizing declares the work of the Holy Spirit to be of no effect and so also Christ’s work to be of no effect. For this reason they were condemned as heretics and ordered to submit to Church authority concerning the Sacraments.

I’ve read that Pope Stephen in 3-4 th century decreed all baptisms valid and no need for rebaptism. It still stands today.The thing is he said so cause he viewed baptism as merely for remission of sins but that it was NOT spirit generating. There were church politics involved in the decision, don’t remember the details. The historian ends saying the decree was correct but on "wrong’’ theology, for clearly CC now teaches baptism is remission and spirit generating.

 

[pocohombre]

However the issue with modern day Baptists is not that they merely re-baptize it is that they teach baptism is nothing at all and it is treated as initiation into church membership. I know people who have been baptized five, six times. In this practice they bear no semblance to the Anabaptists at all, and so fbl did not actually confuse his words, whether he meant to or not, and he did not actually contradict me.

The reason why is that baptism=basically nothing is so novel in the church that you will not find defense for it anywhere.

Never met any baptists who have been baptized more than once as as believing, age of reason, person. It may be nothing today but back then in early church even a “nothing” baptism, as you superflously put it, meant you were a follower of the rebel Jesus, and other things, putting your life on the line for such a public display of allegiance. Sometimes people are superflous to avoid facing the other possibility, that indeed there may another genuine way of looking at things.It is not all my way or nothing.

 

[pocohombre]

Not sure if its been mentioned but I value the image of Passover night and role / responsibility of the parents in the salvation of infants. This demonstrates a familial/covenental? entrance /commencement of the infants life in the family of God facilitated by the faith of the parents and the steps they had to take on the night.

Exodus 12:7-17
And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. 8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. 9 Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof. 10 And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.
11 And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the Lord 's passover. 12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord. 13 **And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses **where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. 14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. 15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel. 16 And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you. 17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.

The idea of the household above brings to mind Paul
1 Corinthians 1:16
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas…

Key word is “token”. We are given tokens, symbols to represent a real spiritual thing.

 

[Porknpie]

The thread is straying off topic,

To the OP, as I stated in post #59, the logic of infant baptism works like this

-All family members are in a whole household.
-Infants are family members.

Therefore

-Infants are in a whole household.

Does anyone disagree?

 

[Porknpie]

Key word is “token”. We are given tokens, symbols to represent a real spiritual thing.

From Webster

TOKEN

1 an outward sign or expression
2
a : symbol, emblem
b : an instance of a linguistic expression
3 a distinguishing feature : characteristic

The blood on the house was an outward sign, expression, distinguishing characterstic, “sign” so that the first born would not be killed when The Lord passed over the house.

I like the NRSVCE translation better as the meaning is clearer without having to use Webster.

13 The blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you live: when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague shall destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt

[SIGN]The sign said do not destroy my first born[/SIGN]​

Nothing really symbolic about that.

 

[fbl9]

Something? Well everybody does something .Jesus responding ? No, that is CC line.He must respond automatically when someone is water baptized. He must…You find this nowhere in the bible, not old or new testament . Anyways that is not baptist position that He responds. We respond to his love

Jesus already responded poco remember what happened to Him.
Without what Christ did on the cross baptism would just a symbol.

 

[pocohombre]

Jesus already responded poco remember what happened to Him.
Without what Christ did on the cross baptism would just a symbol.

Precisley .I was responding to this statement by bogeydogg," Baptists believe salvation comes by… well something… altar call, making a decision, inviting Jesus, making Jesus Lord, asking Jesus in… something about decisions, the heart and you initiating salvation and Jesus responding. " Don’t think it accurately describes baptists position.However, it does sound like CC position,that is, we initiate on behalf of infant with baptism and God must respond and regenerate the infant.

 

[pocohombre]

From Webster

TOKEN

1 an outward sign or expression
2
a : symbol, emblem
b : an instance of a linguistic expression
3 a distinguishing feature : characteristic

The blood on the house was an outward sign, expression, distinguishing characterstic, “sign” so that the first born would not be killed when The Lord passed over the house.

I like the NRSVCE translation better as the meaning is clearer without having to use Webster.

[SIGN]The sign said do not destroy my first born[/SIGN]​

Nothing really symbolic about that.

Well perhaps I misunderstood scripture a bit,but even CC teaches in both symbolism and literalism in some of it’s “tokens”. That is there is spiritual meaning also. That is, were they saved that first passover night simply because of the “token”, or did the token signify covenant with God, relationship, faith,something the Egyptians did not have ? Token is a perfect word,lest we make too much of it “literally”. Don’t think you can separate it from spiritual significance, which is precisely what did happen with Judaism ( and Christianity) down the road.

 

[fbl9]

Precisley .I was responding to this statement by bogeydogg," Baptists believe salvation comes by… well something… altar call, making a decision, inviting Jesus, making Jesus Lord, asking Jesus in… something about decisions, the heart and you initiating salvation and Jesus responding. " Don’t think it accurately describes baptists position.However, it does sound like CC position,that is, we initiate on behalf of infant with baptism and God must respond and regenerate the infant.

No poco, bogey described roughly the Baptist position. And you, in no way came close to the Catholic position. Christ has already responded to the infant’s baptism from the cross.

 

[pocohombre]

The thread is straying off topic,

To the OP, as I stated in post #59, the logic of infant baptism works like this

-All family members are in a whole household.
-Infants are family members.

Therefore

-Infants are in a whole household.

Does anyone disagree?

Yes infants might be considered as part of household.There are two cases of households being baptized in bible .We don’t know if they had infants, maybe maybe not.It certainly can not have the same import as a believer , a disciple, a repentant sinner being baptized ( the majority of cases in the bible).For sure the understanding could be a token to raise the child in admonition of the Lord,a type of sanctifying, as when a believer sanctifies a non-believing spouse. The non-believing spouse must still have a " regenerating encounter" with the Lord.

 

[pocohombre]

No poco, bogey described roughly the Baptist position. And you, in no way came close to the Catholic position. Christ has already responded to the infant’s baptism from the cross.

How is that different from baptist who then would say ,Christ has already responded from the cross to their "invitation’ or initiating ? Would I not be correct by adding the obvious, that we (CC and believers in baptismal regeneration) initiate on behalf of infant and God must respond because of Calvary?

 

[Porknpie]

Yes infants might be considered as part of household.There are two cases of households being baptized in bible .We don’t know if they had infants, maybe maybe not.It certainly can not have the same import as a believer , a disciple, a repentant sinner being baptized ( the majority of cases in the bible).For sure the understanding could be a token to raise the child in admonition of the Lord,a type of sanctifying, as when a believer sanctifies a non-believing spouse. The non-believing spouse must still have a " regenerating encounter" with the Lord.

Poco -

The early Church debated on what day after birth to baptize infants…and not what year. You can read the writings of the early Church on the matter in this link.. The writings of the Church reflect the One Faith - that infants were baptized - that is read in the bible when “whole households” were baptized.

The apostles never put into writing the need to baptized infants as it was understood that baptism replaced circumcision. Again, this can be seen in the writings and Tradition of the Church.

Example from Origen

“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

On the “other side”

No where in scripture does it say NOT to baptize infants. No where does scripture say that baptism should be delayed to the age of reason. And no where do the early Church writings say the same.

You are following a protestant thought (a recent invention by man) that was not taught by Christ to the apostles.

It’s more “logical” to follow what Christ taught the apostles…and that the apostles taught to their descendants, rather than a man made invention created when the bible was removed and misinterpreted from the One Faith that produced it.

Pork