Help with defending infant baptism

[bogeydogg]

Well,we’ve all said many things. Pretty sure most agree some infants may have been baptized in Acts.For sure as centuries passed more and more were.No one is saying you can’t. We are discussing whether you must. We are discussing the dogmatizing, decreeing you must. It is evident to me the discussion may have been going on from the beginning, to this day, and not just by Orthodox/Catholics. Can you believe that ?

No one ever said you must baptize infants. We said baptism is the means of grace by which God washes away original sin and Christ accepts us into His Body and we are given new life by the Holy Spirit.

Why would we not want this for our infants?

 

[pocohombre]

Show me were the catholic church, in dogmatic form, says that you MUST baptize infants?

Of course I said ''must" in terms of salvation of infant. No one must,for there is free will. I meant must in order to be obedient and being in right standing with God. The Church says you deny the infant being God’s child by with holding baptism. Of course you don’t have to, but you “must” if you want your infant to be a child of God. The problem is elsewhere the church since Vatican II may an infant does not go to hell,may be a child of God if death before or without baptism. Furthermore, she states that an unbaptized person is joined to the church,part of the household of Christ and may be living a life of faith,hope and charity before baptism. These people, even from infancy I suppose, are known as catechumens. So apparently a parent may raise up a child teaching and training them in ways of the Church towards baptism, and the child is the Church’s, even Christ’s before baptism

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Of course I said ''must" in terms of salvation of infant. No one must,for there is free will. I meant must in order to be obedient and being in right standing with God. The Church says you deny the infant being God’s child by with holding baptism. Of course you don’t have to, but you “must” if you want your infant to be a child of God. The problem is elsewhere the church since Vatican II may an infant does not go to hell,may be a child of God if death before or without baptism. Furthermore, she states that an unbaptized person is joined to the church,part of the household of Christ and may be living a life of faith,hope and charity before baptism. These people, even from infancy I suppose, are known as catechumens. So apparently a parent may raise up a child teaching and training them in ways of the Church towards baptism, and the child is the Church’s, even Christ’s before baptism

Wow this thread is still going on. I think what i stated below should have been enough for any protestant to stop pestering us about the reasonableness of our Faith. You have not presented any evidence that would override our beliefs. The evidence is on the side of Tradition and Scripture which makes up our Deposit of Faith.

Lev. 12:3 - The circumcision of eight-day old babies was the way of entering into the Old Covenant.

Col. 2:11-12 - Baptism is the new “circumcision” for entering the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults.

Eph. 1:1,6:1 - Paul addresses the “saints” of the Church, and among these were the children he exhorted to obedience. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism.

**Acts. 16:15,33;18:8; 1Cor. 1:16 **– Whole households were baptized. Therefore, none who resided in the house were excluded. All, including infants were born-again in Christ.

Justin speaks of all those who were made pure since childhood. One only becomes pure through the power of baptism washing away original sin -
“And many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years…”
St. Justin Martyr, First Apology (A.D. ~110-165)

Irenaeus was a hearer of St John before the apostle died. He was also a friend of Polycarp who was a disciple of St John -
“For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.”
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies (A.D. ~180)

“And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.”
St. Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition (A.D. ~215)

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

 

[bogeydogg]

Of course I said ''must" in terms of salvation of infant. No one must,for there is free will. I meant must in order to be obedient and being in right standing with God. The Church says you deny the infant being God’s child by with holding baptism. Of course you don’t have to, but you “must” if you want your infant to be a child of God. The problem is elsewhere the church since Vatican II may an infant does not go to hell,may be a child of God if death before or without baptism. Furthermore, she states that an unbaptized person is joined to the church,part of the household of Christ and may be living a life of faith,hope and charity before baptism. These people, even from infancy I suppose, are known as catechumens. So apparently a parent may raise up a child teaching and training them in ways of the Church towards baptism, and the child is the Church’s, even Christ’s before baptism

OK you keep talking about obedience=right standing before God.

You won’t find that in Scripture.

Scripture says we are dead in sins and trespasses and while we are yet enemies of God He sent forth His Son to die for us.

Baptism does not equal meritorious action. Baptism is Christ’s work placed on us.

We do not do Baptism

Baptism is done to us

As such it is given to all who would be in the Covenant of Faith. Because make no mistake Christ absolutely carries over Covenant, Priesthood, Atonement, and Salvation language from the Old Covenant to the New.

As such Baptism, being the sign of the New Covenant, is given in the same fashion as to the Old. The infants. However in order to be in the New Covenant you must be washed of original sin, born to new life, be baptized into Christ and raised with Him by the Holy Spirit. All of these things are done in Baptism. So it is perfectly appropriate to give it to infants.

Now let’s look at your understanding of Faith not just Baptism. You have said over and over again that confession precedes Faith and since infants cannot make confession they therefore cannot possess Faith and so should not be Baptized as Baptism is the sign of the Faith.

But your logic is faulty in two ways.

1. If confession is the mark of true faith said faith is inward not outward. Therefore confession is the sign of Faith and not Baptism. Baptism is really just tradition by your understanding.

The problem is you have repeatedly criticized for Baptizing those who later would fall away and for declaring saved by Baptism those who later mat fall away, but your own construct makes confession the sign of Faith and so I would like to ask you those same questions. Have you ever known anyone to make confession and then fall away?

Of course you have… it’s called being back-slidden and there are revivals where a person can recommit and make good confession again.

And you accuse us of having an understanding of salvation that is not permanent.

1. Since confession is the sign of Faith and Baptism is nothing (by your understanding) then really there is no good reason to not give it to infants since after all it is only water… right?

So whence comes your objection? Why would you care if we Baptize our children if all we are doing is getting them wet and you are planning on getting them wet again later anyway? What does it matter to you? Why would you come on here and go on and on over a matter of preference concerning a sign without meaning?

I think its because you know in your soul that Baptism is more than water. And this knowledge makes you worry for those children who receive it without good confession (ie understanding). You can insist all you want that confession is the sign of Faith but your continuing protestation that infants receive Baptism says otherwise.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

I haven’t ready every page of this but I usually defend infant baptism by asking a simple question.

Why would the same God who was okay with infant circumcision and who was circumcised as an infant in the Person of Christ, have a problem with infants being baptized? Are Christians actually saying that in the Old Covenant infants were allowed but in the New Covenant infants are banned?

 

[fbl9]

…
2. Since confession is the sign of Faith and Baptism is nothing (by your understanding) then really there is no good reason to not give it to infants since after all it is only water… right?

So whence comes your objection? Why would you care if we Baptize our children if all we are doing is getting them wet and you are planning on getting them wet again later anyway? What does it matter to you? Why would you come on here and go on and on over a matter of preference concerning a sign without meaning?

I think its because you know in your soul that Baptism is more than water. And this knowledge makes you worry for those children who receive it without good confession (ie understanding). You can insist all you want that confession is the sign of Faith but your continuing protestation that infants receive Baptism says otherwise.

I was thinking the same today.
If baptism is symbolic why is there a “proper” way to do it.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

I was thinking the same today.
If baptism is symbolic why is there a “proper” way to do it.

If baptism is symbolic then why do you need to do it at all? Why can’t you just believe and have faith that because you believe you’re then automatically baptized? Well I’ll tell you why; it’s because faith alone cannot save a person.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Why would ANY parent want to deny their child from having original sin washed away in Baptism?

As a Catholic I’m vehemently opposed to Calvin on many things but when it comes to infant baptism he defends it probably better than anyone.

 

[guanophore]

 Then why don't you fully immerse, or do other things,traditions/rituals of baptism that they did in early church?

There is full immersion, and it is taught as the “fullest sign” of baptism. What traditions? Fasting? There are regular fastings in the Catholic Church, the bulk of them during Lent before the time most baptisms are done at Easter.

Secondly circumcision was of no avail in OT so why would you replace it ?

This is simply a false statement. You are accusing God of requiring something of His people that is “of no avail”. And you are accusing Christ if submitting to something that is “of no avail”.

I think you are taking this concept out of context. Circumcision does not save one’s soul. That does not mean it has no value. Paul even included circumcision in his boasting list.

Phil 3:4-6

If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.

I think reformers saw the vanity of infant baptism also and tried to stick to the circumcision (baptism?) of the heart that Paul talks about,a baptism done without “hands”.

I am confused about what you mean by “vanity” of infant baptism. And you are confused about the Reformers all of whom continued to baptize infants.

You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that the Holy Spirit is not able to accomplish a spiritual act in the human person if they are an infant.

Do you think the leaping of John the Baptist in his mother’s womb was an act of “vanity”?

If baptism were necessary for this new heart Paul never would have said I came not baptize but to preach the gospel, though I have baptized (after new heart in place )?

No, Poco, you are also taking this statement out of context. Paul said that God did not send him to baptize because this was not his primary ministry. Paul had many helpers that accompanied him who baptized converts. Paul’s call was to preach and teach, so while hundreds were busy getting baptized, he was away praying and preparing his next sermon.

What you see in the NT are largely the conversions of adults, so it is understandable that you would embrace an error like “believers baptism”. I do agree with you, one need not be baptized in order to have a conversion. I suggest the case of Cornelius, who clearly was “born again from above” prior to his baptism. However, from the first sermon preached by Peter, baptism has been considered the entrance rite into the New Covenant. And Peter stated:

Acts 2:38-39
"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you, for your children…

It has never been refused to children, and since it replaced circumcision, there was no need for it to be withheld from infants.

Early fathers were just like us,batting around ideas of whta we think was meant by apostles and scripture etc. They could be wrong, just as sure as you and I could be.

You are quite right about this. In fact, there are some areas where the early fathers miss the mark. There was never any claim that they were inerrant in all their writings.

However, Jesus promised that His One Church would be led “into all Truth” by the Holy Spirit, and the Church, through the guidance of the HS, has pronounced on this matter. All the fathers who write consistent with the teaching of the Apostles are blessed with the gift of infallibility.

You will also note that the discussion was not about whether to baptize the infants, but WHEN! If one should wait until the 8th day, because baptism replaced circumcision, etc.

 

[guanophore]

I think your post is very important to point out that the Sacraments of Initiation are fully given to the infant in the Eastern Rite but in the Western Rite it is a process (Baptism as an infant, The Eucharist in 2nd grade (age of 7) and Confirmation in 9th grade) and I don’t know but I hardly ever hear of an Eastern Rite Catholic leaving their Catholic faith for Protestant faith but in the Western rite they leave their faith more frequently.

I agree about Catholics leaving, but I think it is a lack of appropriate spiritual formation more than the order of the sacraments.

That being said, I just completed an online class where I learned about the Restored Order of the Sacraments of Initiation. Movement is underway in the US to change this back to what was done traditionally.

I think that Eastern Catholics have a very different faith formation and this bolsters them better against the culture of death in which we live.

 

[guanophore]

Prove that you are baptized then saved.Or baptized then repent.

This seems like a strange request, especially since “proving” spiritual experiences is inherently difficult, as they are not subject to the scientific method.

Our believe that baptism saves is not a matter of scientific evidence, but part of the One Faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles.

1 Peter 3:21
And baptism, which this prefigured, **now saves you **— not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

I think we would agree that there is nothing a human being can do, of themselves, to present a clean conscience to God. The only way this can be done is if the HS cleanses the heart of the person, so that we can be “good” in HIs sight.

As to your second challenge, a baptized person should live a life of repentance, doing works that befit repentance. Once baptized, repentance should occur whenever one has failed to live a live worthy to the calling to which we have been called.

Actually there are no proofs,only evidences and convictions.

Glad you can see this.

Glad you say there are evidences, or just as many, for infant baptism as well as consenting children/adults.Actually less for infant baptism I believe( 2 cases-households).

Yes, Catholics are not limited to the New Testament for evidences of the faith.

So early father barnabus was wrong when he said,So he that is learned in the lord’s commandments keep them, as many as are written ?

No, he was not “wrong”. The written law was expected to be followed, especially for Messianic Jews. The fact that some of the revelation of God is not written does not negate the part that is.

I don’t think any church teaches that infants go to hell by any means and limbo is out of vogue.

I think you are wrong about this, Poco. All the Churches founded by Apostles embrace this teaching of Jesus.

John 3:18-19
18 Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Jesus taught that every human soul enters the world under condemnation. That means everyone is headed for hell.

 Let the children come to me does not help with infant baptism .

It may not help you, Poco, since you are disbelieving in His words, but it sure helps the children! The apostles taught that there is no fuller way to “come to Him” than through baptism, where we are made one with Him.

The context is to have the faith of a child.Jesus says that.

Indeed, he does. But it also says he took infants, and blessed them.

He does not say who is up there but what attributes are up there.

Not sure what you are saying here, but withholding baptism from infants would be preventing them, which He strictly forbade.

Being born of the spirit and water does not help either for one must overcome what many believe what "water"means totally apart from baptism .

Not sure again what you are trying to say her Poco. The Apostles never separated the Holy Spirit from the Water, from the time Jesus joined the two in His Own baptism. That is why all the churches founded by Apostles do not separate them. They were separated after the Reformation when believers began to drift further and further from what the Apostles believed and taught.

Baptism was not a big part of OT,so why would Jesus chide an OT learned man for not knowing about baptism by water for the beginning of spiritual life ?

He was chiding him because he did not seem to understand about spiritual rebirth.

Not even John’s baptism signified this. He is not critical of Nicodemus either for not knowing about future rites, even if vaguely prophesied, and certainly not for effecting new life.

No, He was critical because Nicodemus did not grasp basic concepts of spirituality, and could not follow the metaphor of baptism. He was thinking concretely (just like you do).
Baptism was not a big part of OT,so why would Jesus chide an OT learned man for not knowing about baptism by water for the beginning of spiritual life ? Not even John’s baptism signified this. He is not critical of Nicodemus either for not knowing about future rites, even if vaguely prophesied, and certainly not for effecting new life.

 

[guanophore]

Baptism was not a big part of OT,so why would Jesus chide an OT learned man for not knowing about baptism by water for the beginning of spiritual life ?

He was chiding him because he did not seem to understand about spiritual rebirth.

Not even John’s baptism signified this. He is not critical of Nicodemus either for not knowing about future rites, even if vaguely prophesied, and certainly not for effecting new life.

No, He was critical because Nicodemus did not grasp basic concepts of spirituality, and could not follow the metaphor of baptism. He was thinking concretely (just like you do).

Baptism was not a big part of OT,so why would Jesus chide an OT learned man for not knowing about baptism by water for the beginning of spiritual life ?

He was chiding him because Nicodemus was a teacher in Israel, and did not understand the concept of spiritual rebirth. He would have been familiar with this passage:

Ezek 36:25-27
5 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

and should have understood baptism as a fulfillment of this prophesy.

Not even John’s baptism signified this. He is not critical of Nicodemus either for not knowing about future rites, even if vaguely prophesied, and certainly not for effecting new life.

You are right, John’s baptism did not give spiritual rebirth like it did after Jesus joined the HS to the baptismal waters. And you are also right, Jesus did not criticize Nicodemus for the future, but that of the past he did not understand.

Ezek 18:31
31 Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed against me, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! W

This is accomplished in baptism, where the old man is buried, and we are sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the deposit of our inheritance.

So tell me is you and your entire household saved ? So what did Jesus mean that He would set brother against brother etc ?

The household enters salvation when they are baptized. That does not necessarily mean they will continue in it. People are free, so long as they are in this embodied world, to choose to reject the faith into which they were baptized, and leave the path of salvation.

That is the debate, just what is the tradition, and just what is the tradition of scriptural interpretation of the matter. How can you say what tradition is except by what extra biblical things/writings.

I quite agree. One cannot even know what books belong in the Scriptures without extrabiblical sources. The canon of your Bible was formed by those same Traditions that support infant baptism. If they got it wrong, how can you trust your Bible?

Hence I gave you an extra-biblical writing, not to be extra biblical .

You cited one of the early fathers (who happened to believe in infant baptism) saying athat the written commandments should be obeyed. That does not mean that “extrabiblical writing” should be ignored. Especially in the light of the fact that there WAS NO BIBLE at the time! Barnabas was using the Alexandrian Septuagint. Why don’t you?

The fact that we go in circles for centuries on the matter tells me it should not be dogmatized, for it may be wrong focus.

Actually, the opposite is true. Such things are dogmatized specifically to PREVENT going in circles for centuries. The Apostles gave us One Faith. It is the duty of the Church to proclaim that One Faith, and dogmatizing makes it clear to the faithful what the Apostles taught and believed, so there is no misunderstanding.
Hence I gave you an extra-biblical writing, not to be extra biblical .The fact that we go in circles for centuries on the matter tells me it should not be dogmatized, for it may be wrong focus.

Yes, it was symbol for that entrance, a step of faith, an outward sign for an inward reality, which came first.

We understand the nature of a symbol differently. You think of a symbol more a sign - pointing to something other than itself, where we understand that it contains that which it signifies. Yes, for adults, baptism is an outward action toward something that has happened inwardly, but that does not take away the spiritual effects of the symbol. All those spiritual truths taught by the Apostles that occur in baptism still occur, whether it is an adult, or an infant.

Since God did not require a profession of faith from infants for circumcision, we do not require it for baptism. According to your model, all the children brought into the Old Covenant would need to have “faith first”.

You believed and had desire to follow and were then circumcised.

This is true of adults in both the Old and New covenanats.

 

[Darryl_B]

So tell me is you and your entire household saved ? So what did Jesus mean that He would set brother against brother etc ?

Pocohombre, your argument here is a distraction. Are you able to explain the OT analogy that was picked up in the NT by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:1-2 about baptism? It seems to contradict your argument against households.

 

[pocohombre]

OK you keep talking about obedience=right standing before God.

You won’t find that in Scripture.

Scripture says we are dead in sins and trespasses and while we are yet enemies of God He sent forth His Son to die for us.

Baptism does not equal meritorious action. Baptism is Christ’s work placed on us.

We do not do Baptism

Baptism is done to us

As such it is given to all who would be in the Covenant of Faith. Because make no mistake Christ absolutely carries over Covenant, Priesthood, Atonement, and Salvation language from the Old Covenant to the New.

As such Baptism, being the sign of the New Covenant, is given in the same fashion as to the Old. The infants. However in order to be in the New Covenant you must be washed of original sin, born to new life, be baptized into Christ and raised with Him by the Holy Spirit. All of these things are done in Baptism. So it is perfectly appropriate to give it to infants.

Now let’s look at your understanding of Faith not just Baptism. You have said over and over again that confession precedes Faith and since infants cannot make confession they therefore cannot possess Faith and so should not be Baptized as Baptism is the sign of the Faith.

But your logic is faulty in two ways.

1. If confession is the mark of true faith said faith is inward not outward. Therefore confession is the sign of Faith and not Baptism. Baptism is really just tradition by your understanding.

The problem is you have repeatedly criticized for Baptizing those who later would fall away and for declaring saved by Baptism those who later mat fall away, but your own construct makes confession the sign of Faith and so I would like to ask you those same questions. Have you ever known anyone to make confession and then fall away?

Of course you have… it’s called being back-slidden and there are revivals where a person can recommit and make good confession again.

And you accuse us of having an understanding of salvation that is not permanent.

1. Since confession is the sign of Faith and Baptism is nothing (by your understanding) then really there is no good reason to not give it to infants since after all it is only water… right?

So whence comes your objection? Why would you care if we Baptize our children if all we are doing is getting them wet and you are planning on getting them wet again later anyway? What does it matter to you? Why would you come on here and go on and on over a matter of preference concerning a sign without meaning?

I think its because you know in your soul that Baptism is more than water. And this knowledge makes you worry for those children who receive it without good confession (ie understanding). You can insist all you want that confession is the sign of Faith but your continuing protestation that infants receive Baptism says otherwise.

Does disobedience =right standing with God ? Where is free will ? Does free will excercise=no will excercise ? For some baptism is done to them (but someone else-godparent excercises free will) and for others-consenting individuals-they choose to get it “done”.

 

[peace2u2]

I agree about Catholics leaving, but I think it is a lack of appropriate spiritual formation more than the order of the sacraments.

That being said, I just completed an online class where I learned about the Restored Order of the Sacraments of Initiation. Movement is underway in the US to change this back to what was done traditionally.

I think that Eastern Catholics have a very different faith formation and this bolsters them better against the culture of death in which we live.

Thank you for the link. Do you imply that Eastern Catholic faith formation students are taught to know, share and defend their Catholic faith thru Scripture and do not use a “textbook”? Our parish has recently undergone changes and the textbooks have been thrown out AMEN and we teach straight from the Bible. If you would like the name of my parish, PM me and I will send you the link. God Bless you and by the way, I always enjoy reading your posts!
Peace

 

[bogeydogg]

Does disobedience =right standing with God ? Where is free will ? Does free will excercise=no will excercise ? For some baptism is done to them (but someone else-godparent excercises free will) and for others-consenting individuals-they choose to get it “done”.

You cannot earn your right standing with God. Therefore right doing will never earn you right standing. That is what Paul means when he says no one is saved by the Law and by the works of the Law. Of course you are damned by breaking the Law but your keeping of it will never be perfect and so your righteousness will not save you.

Concerning free will I think St Augustine said it best when he argued that of course a man has free will but since his affections are bent away from God and toward sinfulness the exercising of that will cannot save him.

Now that is Augustine not Calvin. Augustine absolutely believed men are free but helpless because of sin.

Therefore we cannot approach God and ask to be saved or pray to be saved or accept salvation or anything else. The one who is saved is helpless before God because he cannot raise himself up to exercise his own will unto the saving of his own soul. Therefore God the Holy Spirit makes us alive through Word and Sacrament in the waters of Baptism and places us into Christ’s death and raises us to new life in Christ and so joins us to His Body and gives us a new will and a new life.

Where this differs from Calvin is that Calvin would insist there is no such thing as free will and the human soul is not more than a dumb animal. That God is so Holy He is unapproachable and His capricious saving of some is according to His own will as He sorts one herd of dumb animals from another.

Augustine taught that God has willed to save all but none exercise their own will to be saved because they only ever seek after their own selfish gain. Therefore by grace God intervenes to help the helpless and any who are saved are saved by grace having been given a new will and a new life.

Of course you may ask, “Well if I have a new will and a new life in Baptism then why do good works at all? Why should I exercise my will to the good if it is God who wills to save me and not me to save myself?”

To answer that I turn to Luther who said, “No Christian would ever dare look upon the work of Christ and respond to it by asking himself ‘Why should I work for my Lord who saved me?’.”

The one who dares to say if he cannot exercise his will then he need not do works does not need to change his thinking, he needs to repent and be converted. Because no one who has been saved would despise the work of the Lord Jesus to account it as nothing and so do nothing for Him in return.

 

[pocohombre]

You cannot earn your right standing with God. Therefore right doing will never earn you right standing. That is what Paul means when he says no one is saved by the Law and by the works of the Law. Of course you are damned by breaking the Law but your keeping of it will never be perfect and so your righteousness will not save you.

Concerning free will I think St Augustine said it best when he argued that of course a man has free will but since his affections are bent away from God and toward sinfulness the exercising of that will cannot save him.

Now that is Augustine not Calvin. Augustine absolutely believed men are free but helpless because of sin.

Therefore we cannot approach God and ask to be saved or pray to be saved or accept salvation or anything else. The one who is saved is helpless before God because he cannot raise himself up to exercise his own will unto the saving of his own soul. Therefore God the Holy Spirit makes us alive through Word and Sacrament in the waters of Baptism and places us into Christ’s death and raises us to new life in Christ and so joins us to His Body and gives us a new will and a new life.

Where this differs from Calvin is that Calvin would insist there is no such thing as free will and the human soul is not more than a dumb animal. That God is so Holy He is unapproachable and His capricious saving of some is according to His own will as He sorts one herd of dumb animals from another.

Augustine taught that God has willed to save all but none exercise their own will to be saved because they only ever seek after their own selfish gain. Therefore by grace God intervenes to help the helpless and any who are saved are saved by grace having been given a new will and a new life.

Of course you may ask, “Well if I have a new will and a new life in Baptism then why do good works at all? Why should I exercise my will to the good if it is God who wills to save me and not me to save myself?”

To answer that I turn to Luther who said, “No Christian would ever dare look upon the work of Christ and respond to it by asking himself ‘Why should I work for my Lord who saved me?’.”

The one who dares to say if he cannot exercise his will then he need not do works does not need to change his thinking, he needs to repent and be converted. Because no one who has been saved would despise the work of the Lord Jesus to account it as nothing and so do nothing for Him in return.

I thought there difference was that augustine thought god predestined those who should be saved but Calvin went further and said therefore god must have predestined those lost to be lost.

 

[bogeydogg]

I thought there difference was that augustine thought god predestined those who should be saved but Calvin went further and said therefore god must have predestined those lost to be lost.

That is an oversimplification. If you take Calvin’s theology to its logical conclusion he borders on being Unitarian in that the Holiness of the Father not only overthrows all other attributes of God but also the other persons of the Trinity. Calvin argued man is never free and only does that toward which he is compelled. Edwards expanded on this theory btw. But freedom is no part of Calvin’s anthropology and really is no part of his theology either.

Augustine on the other hand firmly believed in the freedom of men and the futility of freedom for the wicked. Of course men are free, but being wicked such freedom does them no good. Therefore God changes a man’s affections and so changes his will. So the question is not is man free the question is what does it profit man to be free?

Of course once our affections are changed then we can choose to follow God but no one ever preceded salvation by an exercise of will. That is why it is perfectly appropriate to baptize infants because only the helpless are saved and the wicked (unsaved) cannot make good confession to be saved.

God Bless

 

[pocohombre]

What traditions?

I meant baptismal traditions,such as “thrice immersing”,renouncing the devil, drinking milk and honey after baptism, not bathing for a week after baptism .

This is simply a false statement. You are accusing God of requiring something of His people that is “of no avail”. And you are accusing Christ if submitting to something that is “of no avail”.

The physical circumcision is of no avail, unless there is a spiritual circumcision.The two are different.The physical was a sign,effectual for making a nation, separating from heathen etc, as baptism to us differentiates us form the world, a sign for being a christian,part of a church, but it does not “regenerate”'per say, as circumcision did not either.

I think you are taking this concept out of context. Circumcision does not save one’s soul. That does not mean it has no value. Paul even included circumcision in his boasting list.

Then baptism does not save ones soul,is not regenerational.Perhaps you agree that it is still important, that is a sign is important. Paul says he could boast but calls it “rubbish”. His circumcision was rubbish compared to the circumcision of the heart that occurred on the Damascus road." I count all things to be loss compared to the surpasssing value of knowing Christ…and count them rubbish" vs 8

I am confused about what you mean by “vanity” of infant baptism. And you are confused about the Reformers all of whom continued to baptize infants.

The vanity is not in baptizing infants, as from our Jewish heritage possibly, but in calling them regenerated, which they were not per OT typology.

You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that the Holy Spirit is not able to accomplish a spiritual act in the human person if they are an infant.

Do you think the leaping of John the Baptist in his mother’s womb was an act of “vanity”?

Yes more Augustinian predestination, for some. Is it now for all ? We both agree on this, faith saves and hearing by the Word. In typology of OT, we agree that the parent teaches the child from early as possible and as oft as is possible the ways of the Lord, the Holy Spirit desiring to now circumcising the heart, as the parent once circumcised/baptized the flesh of the child. The infant may be sanctified in a religious rite, but that does not mean regeneration. It is like Paul urging the believing spouse to remain with an unbelieving spouse, for in that union, the unbelieving partner is "sanctified’ (and the children are holy) in hope towards salvation.1 Cor.7:14…

 

[pocohombre]

No, Poco, you are also taking this statement out of context. Paul said that God did not send him to baptize because this was not his primary ministry. Paul had many helpers that accompanied him who baptized converts. Paul’s call was to preach and teach, so while hundreds were busy getting baptized, he was away praying and preparing his next sermon.