How can a Baby enter into the contract of baptism?

Lowell commented on the rebaptism video. Here are a few thoughts.
The bookstore (where almost everything is free): www.wolfmueller...
To sign up for Pastor Wolfmueller's free weekly email of theological awesomeness called "Wednesday What-Not", visit www.wolfmueller.... (Every month we give away a free book to a subscriber!)
All the theological awesomeness ends up on the blog: www.wolfmueller.co

[@davidcochrane1276]

One of the greatest things I learned 21 years ago when I started attending a Lutheran congregation is making the sign of the cross. I was raised in a Tradition which does not teach this. Nor does it teach what a powerful gift we were given in Holy Baptism. It is such a great certainty to know Our Lord put his name upon us, 52 years ago in my case, and through faith we once again receive this certainty. Thank you Pr. Wolfmueller!

[@cayetano6547]

I had no idea lutherans believed in making the sign of the cross. I started studying lutheranism a month ago.

[@MrZarewna]

@@cayetano6547 Lutherans don't. Not at least in Finland.

[@cypresslutheranparish1827]

That may be due to Pietism - not Lutheranism per se. Pietism held sway in the Scandinavian churches and, unfortunately, still exerts an influence on a majority of North American Lutheran congregations. A hallmark of Pietism is dispensing with things viewed as "too Catholic" such as the sign of the cross, etc.

[@momikal2238]

Lutherans can make the sign of the cross. I was taught this in catechism. I was in a horrible car accident, and I make the sign of the cross before going through the same intersection each day. This has greatly reduced my anxiety of going through the same place each day.

[@Nashvillain10SE]

I was raised in a Lutheran tradition and we, by no means, made "the sign of the cross"

[@williamgammeter5113]

Beautifully articulated and reasoned from scripture.

[@rickpettey8822]

Kudos Pastor Wolfmueller. Once again you have made understandable that most beautiful doctrine of Baptism, always doing so based solidly upon the Word of God. Thank you.

[@chipthompsondesign1135]

Music to my heart...truly one of the best descriptions of baptism I've ever heard...oh that I would have heard it years ago...would have saved me a lot of struggles.

[@LisaB_12204]

Gentle Pastor, wonderful answer.

[@jdmdonaldson8809]

Exactly my thoughts :)

[@2anonymous]

Beautiful response to the question.

[@graydomn]

The Abraham story is so great and so powerful.

[@samsonsupaka8716]

True.

[@wayneweinschreider5723]

⁠GENESIS 15:6 Then he (Abraham )believed in Yahweh; and He counted it to him as righteousness. FYI circumcision did not come till much later in Genesis 17. Abraham was already saved at that point before he was circumcised. Circumcision has no relationship to salvation at all.

[@graydomn]

@@wayneweinschreider5723 Tell that to Zipporah.

[@MrGassemann]

-Forgiven means beautiful in the eyes of God. -And we are benefactors of Gods promises. Awesome!

[@Kaemea]

Love how much Baptism and adoption are alike. I'd love to have a "guided tour" of your bookshelves sometime. (I read like a fiend, anything I can get my hands on!)

[@sueregan2782]

Best affirmation I have ever heard of infant baptism!

[@bigderfla]

Thank you for this! I really enjoy the seal and joy with which you preach the Good News. Also, nice haircut! 😊

[@ajplathwisconsin]

Pastor, you were right on!

[@elainejan]

Thank you for that excellent explanation.

[@leonceboudreauxwolf]

I guess some looked at me with a "whaat?" As a former Charismatic, I've used the sign of the Cross (right to left) for about 20 years. It's a beautiful, powerful gesture that's for all Christians, not only Catholic or Lutheran. I've been researching the beliefs of the Lutheran Church for a minute now and if there was a LCMS Church nearer, I'd probably convert. So far, these pastors have made more sense than the ones I've known in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles in explaining the Bible. Pastor Wolfmueller's explanations have brought understanding in some things that weren't addressed, let alone explained. Thank you Sir .

[@villarrealmarta6103]

I was adopted as a 1 year old by my now earthly father on Good Friday 1984. I use it all the time as an example of God’s adopting us without us needing to be aware even of God’s grace. Grace doesn’t cease to be grace if the person who receives it doesn’t know that’s what it is at the time.

[@dina.k]

Thank you! Very helpful. I'm considering going back to my home church (went from lutheran to baptist) and infant baptism has been the main stumbling block.

[@Inaeth]

This elucidates so much. I was raised in a Pentecostal tradition, where they absolutely frowned on this. I had some preachers actually say it was akin to rebellion from God. This response makes it much more clear. I guess the difference is that the traditions that I was grappling with before were based on Jacob's ladder, rather than Grace.

[@westhawk]

As a Catholic this is a well articulated reason for infant baptism. 🙏

[@echoesofthepast-w1u]

As a Christian, it is not.

[@westhawk]

Matthew 28:18 pretty clear. Did not say leave children behind only accepting adults. This is a gift from God so best to accept it on behalf of your child than not.

[@echoesofthepast-w1u]

@@westhawk If your attitude to it is "who really cares", then ok. If you (or anybody) tries to say that it's scriptural, that is where the problem lies. The only thing that happens with infant "baptism" is that the infant gets a little wet.

[@charliecampbell6851]

@@echoesofthepast-w1uinfants need salvation, salvation comes through faith, infants can have faith as demonstrated by John the Baptist and others, baptism imparts the Holy Spirit, therefore we should baptize infants, as it is the new circumcision like Paul says as he his showing that the new covenant is for all people. Salvation for all, not just the Jews. Circumcision (baptism) for all people, not just men. Remember at the institution of circumcision, it was first directed towards the adults, and then was carried onwards with the children. Similarly, baptism is for converts first (because you need adult believers before you can have believers' infants to baptize), and then also for the children going forward. And the new covenant expands it to include women and girls as well.

[@echoesofthepast-w1u]

@@charliecampbell6851 What scripture implies infants require salvation? How can an infant have faith? Where in the Bible does John the Baptist demonstrate infant faith? What scripture states that baptism imparts the Holy Spirit? 1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Acts 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. Galatians 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. If faith works by love, which it does, how does an infant have love toward God?

[@lutherserbe6435]

It is so weird, it seems to be easier to buy Luthers and Melanchton's Writings in English than in German... I am trying to find the "Schmalkaldische Artikel" the "Confessio Augustana" and the "Konkordienformel" in their origin texts. But it seems to need a University library to actually get this stuff...

[@roywarner9807]

Great video. Adoption angle is something I never considered.

[@787Earl]

Thank you

[@kayladavis4574]

Beautiful answer! Very convincing

[@josephgabriel4261]

U got very genuine points to baptise infants

[@judithtaylor6713]

This is awesome.

[@josephgabriel4261]

Pr it is very good statement from u

[@swm1700]

Thank you!

[@krbohn101]

Good question/comment. Excellent answer. Thank you both for sharing.

[@judithtaylor6713]

The Benchmark for this issue. Thank you.

[@c2browne]

This is a good example, Pastor Wolfmueller (as is an infant being the beneficiary of a will and estate). In fact, when our son's adoption was being completed, there was a little action which was startingly "baptismal" in appearance. The courtroom proceedings having ended, we carried our Joshua (about 10 months old) out of the courtroom to an opening like a cashier's window facing into the hallway. We held Joshua up to the window and the person inside reached out with the legal adoption papers and touched our son with them. In my (admittedly foggy!) memory, that was the end of it, and we received our son as our own from that time forward. It was a couple of months later that the state issued us a new Birth Certificate for Joshua bearing our family name (and no incidcation anywhere that he had not been born to us).

[@santamanone]

Excellent answer regarding infant baptism, but I wish you had expounded a bit more on the part dealing with full submersion.

[@rickpettey8822]

santamanone: what exactly are you struggling with? I know that many are taught that Jesus was submerged. That is not so. There are no examples of baptism by submersion. Please reply if any specific questions.

[@ETBrothers]

@@rickpettey8822 where does it say Jesus was not submerged?

[@rickpettey8822]

@@ETBrothers : E.T. Brothers: Thanks for the question. First, allow me to quote this opening statement from my Bible study on Baptism, especially Infant Baptism: Mode of Baptism is not important. It can be performed by pouring, sprinkling, immersing, etc. The verb for baptism in the Greek is [ βαπτίζω] while including to immerse can also mean dip, wash, plunge, drench, etc. This definition is according to the leading Greek-English Lexicon used by conservative scholars today, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature by Walter Bauer, F.W. Gingrich and Frederick Danker. To support this we will consider three passages Matthew 3:16, Acts 8:38,39, and Mark 7:4. I apologize the length of my response. This is necessary because to truly examine these passages we must do so from the Greek, as that is the language inspired by the Holy Spirit in which to proclaim the truth of the Gospel. No English translation is suitable when it comes to seeking the absolute truth of the Word of God. Matthew 3:16: (1) When He had been baptized, Jesus (2) came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God (3) descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. (1) βαπτισθεὶς - This verb for baptize is an aorist, passive, participle, masculine, singular, nominative. What this means is that we are not told in what manner Jesus was baptized. Could He have been submerged? Yes. Does the Greek say that He was? No. All it tells us is that Jesus was baptized. This participle simply picks up the action AFTER (caps for emphasis, not screaming :) He was baptized. (2) εὐθὺς ἀνέβη ἀπὸ του ὕδατος - Once baptized Jesus immediately LEAVES the river. Where many Christians today make the error is in believing that the text says Jesus was submerged at this point. The Greek text literally reads “immediately came up/went up AWAY FROM the water.” The Greek preposition ἀπὸ/apo is fully translated “away from”. This means that once baptized (how we are not told as it is not important) Jesus immediately steps out of the Jordan River onto the bank. The error many make is to understand the Greek proposition to read “from under”. The preposition for under is “ὑπὸ”. This is the preposition that would have to been used to if Jesus was definitely submerged. We see this false teaching in the Jimmy Swaggart Expositor’s Bible in his notes on this verse “refers to Baptism by immersion and not by sprinkling.” This is sloppy exegesis at its worst! (3) Due to the false understanding of “from under” almost all artwork depicting the Baptism of Jesus show Him in the Jordan River when the Holy Spirit descends upon Him like a dove. He is, in fact, up on the bank when that happens. That is simply what the Greek text shows. Acts 8:38,39 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch (1) went down into the water, and he baptized him. Now when (2) they came up out of the water, This is the other passage often employed to falsely teach submersion. (1) Note that both the eunuch and Philip went down into the water. Philip baptizes the eunuch but we are not told how. (2) The preposition used in this case for “out of” is ἐκ/ek. Although it is different than that of Matthew 3:16 it has the same end result. Just as both went down into the water, both now come out of the water. This in no way can be understood as immersion. If coming out of the water means that both were under the water for the baptism then Philip performed the baptism while submerged. This, of course, is not the case. And finally, Mark 7:4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless (1) they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the (2) washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches. (1) βαπτίσωνται - this is the verb (from the word baptidzo/baptize used to refer to the Pharisees washing their hands before eating. They could do this by pouring water over their hands, dipping them in water or immersing them water. (2) βαπτισμοὺς - this is the noun used for baptizing. Note this is a common word used for washing. Note what is being “baptized”: “cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches”. Cups you can immerse to wash, perhaps even pitchers. But not the last two. There is no way to understand the Greek word for baptize to mean immerse in this context. E.T. Brothers, this is why no honest, respectable N.T. scholar can restrict the word “baptize” to solely mean immerse. The Greek N.T. will not allow this. If you have any follow-up questions please do not hesitate to ask. If so, I will try to answer as best I can. As a Lutheran pastor THIS is THE topic I get asked about the most by other Christians, much to my delight. Pax.

[@ETBrothers]

@@rickpettey8822 thank you for sharing! I guess my question was more in terms of that you can't say for sure Jesus was not submerged as we don't know the mode. Hence, wouldn't it be better to say based on this that we don't know, rather than that you know Jesus wasn't submerged?

[@rickpettey8822]

@@ETBrothers : My apology, as that was what I had intended to prove (i.e., that we can't know how Jesus was baptized). I say that on account of so many Christians (especially in the U.S. ) who teach that unless you are immersed you are not baptized. It is against that false teaching that I go into such detail to show that that isn't correct. You are absolutely correct, God's Word does not tell us the method of Jesus' Baptism, it might have been by immersion and then again, it might not have. Sorry, I didn't make that clear. Pax.

[@VndNvwYvvSvv]

"Shalom" says more than all we need to know.

[@Greg-k4e]

Very helpful!!

[@karinlofgren6359]

Great! Thanks.

[@sbwende]

Explaining it in terms of adoption makes a lot of sense to me as someone who is adopted. No one asked me if I wanted to be adopted those who love and care for me decided that it was the right thing for me. I do however really struggle to get my head round how we know that a baby has faith? If a baby can have faith it can also not have faith. How does a parent know if their baby has excepted the gospel or rejected it? Also what about all the children who are not baptized, are they all damned?

[@Mygoalwogel]

Jesus commands us not to hinder those who wish to bring their infants to him. In fact, he calls the infants to himself, and says not that they are brought, but that they come to him. Therefore, I'd argue, those who wish to bring their children to Christ have the Divine Promise that Christ accepts them and gives them his Spirit. “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to himself, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.’ And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.” Mt 19:13; Lk 18:15-17; Mk 10:16 If you accept that much, then it isn't such a stretch to reason like this, "I wanna bring my baby to Jesus. How does the Risen Jesus command us to bring people to him in the Great Commission? Baptism!"

[@SOMELITTLEGIANT]

Hi Pastor. Isn't a better word for a one-sided contract a "covenant". That's what I was taught. In a contract, if either side breaks it, the contract is void. In a covenant, if either side breaks it, the other side continues to keep their part of the covenant/ agreement. For example, God's covenant with Israel.

[@PastorBryanWolfmueller]

Here's a video answer: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aqCceJmBnqhneNU

[@SOMELITTLEGIANT]

@@PastorBryanWolfmueller thanks, Pastor

[@tylerjornov]

Amen! 👏🏽

[@anjuphiliphs3617]

While evangelicals would disapprove of infant baptism, they however would hold to infant dedications. The reference for this practice I think comes from the gospels where the parents of Jesus as is taught in the Torah brings baby Jesus to be presented in the temple.

[@sammygomes7381]

Infant baptism is not biblical. Baby dedication does not save it is nothing more than the parents and church family agreeing to help bring the child up in the word of God. Don't confuse the old covenant with the new. The child was not saved bringing them to the temple.

[@sammygomes7381]

@@mpkropf5062 Really, you think people eat Christ and drink His blood?

[@wayneweinschreider5723]

Question: Mark 16:16 says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” In his Pentecost sermon, Peter urged his listeners to be baptized to wash away their sins. I am confused. Is baptism essential for salvation or is it not? Response: There is not one verse in all the Bible that says that failure to be baptized damns the soul, but there are scores of verses declaring that those who do not believe the gospel are lost. Nor is baptism even any part of the gospel. As Paul said, “Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel” (1 Corinthians 1:17; cf. 15:1-4). In Paul’s clear declaration of “the gospel . . . by which . . . we are saved” (1 Corinthians 15:1-4), there is no mention of baptism. It is upon believing the gospel that one is to be baptized (“What doth hinder me to be baptized?. . . . If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest”-Acts 8:36-37). Christ, after His resurrection, sent His disciples forth to preach the gospel worldwide. Of their converts He said, “ . . . baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19). That all who believe (and they alone) are to be baptized could not be clearer. Baptism symbolizes the believer’s identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection: “We are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead . . . we also should walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4). Therefore, baptism in the early church was by immersion: “They went down both into the water” (Acts 8:38-39; etc.). Death could only be symbolized in this type of baptism. Unfortunately, various innovations (e.g., sprinkling instead of immersion) and even heresies were gradually introduced regarding baptism: that one must be saved-indeed, that baptism itself saves the soul, even when administered to infants. Catholics even practice intrauterine baptism of the fetus when there is doubt that they will be born alive. Such heresies became known as the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Most Protestants holding similar beliefs today are not aware that they originated in the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. For centuries before the Reformation, baptismal regeneration was rejected by non-Catholic believers, who taught from Scripture that baptism was only for those who had believed the gospel. Infant baptism was rejected, because infants have neither understood the gospel nor believed in Christ. Those who practiced infant baptism justified it by citing alleged biblical precedent where entire families were baptized, presuming that there were infants among them. That this was not the case can be easily proved. Consider Cornelius’s household: They heard the gospel, believed it, and were baptized. That no infants were involved is clear, for they had all gathered “to hear all things that are commanded thee of God” (Acts 10:33), things that an infant could not understand. “The Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard [and, obviously, understood and believed] the word” (v. 44); and they spoke with tongues (v. 46). That they had “received the Holy Ghost” (v. 47) proved that they were saved. Therefore, Peter baptized them (v. 48). Here is proof both that one is saved without baptism and that only those already saved are to be baptized.  Neither can infant baptism be supported from the case of the Philippian jailer, who “was baptized, he and all his [household]” (Acts 16:33). Again, there were obviously no infants present because Paul and Silas preached the gospel “to all that were in his house” (v. 32), and “all his house” believed (v. 34) and were then baptized. The gospel is not preached to infants, not even by those who baptize them.

[@bigtobacco1098]

How does a baby become a citizen

[@Selahsmum]

Wow. Helpful. And like adoption, children can also be made legal heirs to their fathers treasure. 😁

[@stevekohl5351]

As an ELCA Lutheran, i affirmed my baptism through the rite of confirmation.

[@VndNvwYvvSvv]

Sorry but ELCA is a perversion, a corrupted form of the real thing

[@kevinschultz2243]

Mark 16:16

[@JimiSurvivor]

The Anabaptists were right about this. You are dead set against them because your founder MURDERED thousands of because they practiced ADULT BAPTISM. You try to say Baptism is effectual for infants because it is LIKE adoption which is valid for infants. However, we must look to SCRIPTURES to define ADOPTION not to our traditions and here is what scripture says about it: …22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until the present time. 23Not only that, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons,THE REDEMPTION OF OUR BODIES 24 For in this hope we were saved; but hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he can already see?… In this age we are looking forward (eagerly awaiting) our ADOPTION AS SONS yet we have not yet received it. While we hope FOR adoption we have not received it yet. As Paul tells us HOPE THAT IS SEEN IS NOT HOPE, in other words, if we had already realized our promised adoption we would not be HOPING for it. We would instead be SEEING (realizing) it now IN THE PRESENT. So what is ADOPTION? Paul tells us exactly what it is: 23 Not only that, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we WAIT eagerly for our adoption as sons, the REDEMPTION OF OUR BODIES (Romans 8:23) Paul says clearly that our ADOPTION as sons occurs at the SAME TIME as when our BODIES are redeemed. This in turn will happen when Christ returns and renews all creation: 18 I consider that our present sufferings are not comparable to the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 The CREATION waits in eager expectation for the REVELATION OF THE SONS of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but because of the One who subjected it, in hope 21 that the CREATION ITSELF WILL BE SET FREE from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the CHILDREN OF GOD. (Romans 8:18-21) Since infant baptism is not accompanied with all these events it cannot be our Adoption

[@PastorBryanWolfmueller]

I was thinking about Galatians 4:5-6 (while remembering 3:26-27).

[@robertj5208]

As long as the infant has repented and believes.

[@soulosxpiotov7280]

If a baby who is baptized is yet to be justified, regenerated, born again, then did that baby's water baptism merely irritate him/her? But the Ephesians 5 passage, is that wife not already saved?

[@toddstevens9667]

Not necessarily. But then, the Ephesians 5 reference isn’t to baptism anyway. It’s a reference to Ezekiel 36:25-27, a spiritual cleansing, not a physical one.

[@westhawk]

So based on your argument you have now assumed that when God imparts a gift on us such as baptism and eventhough the infant does not understand or an adult rejects later in life does not diminish the power of that gift. Who are we to question God on this. Even many in the protestant realm accept infant baptism.

[@amywalker4710]

So how can you loose your salvation .. God doesn't break his covenant.... If you are in Christ you are sealed until the day of redemption... He who started the good work in you will see it to completion . It's no longer me that lives but Christ that lives in me .. just as Christ will never again die neither will his Spirit that is sealed in me as a believer .. now that is security . Praise God....

[@mitchellscott1843]

Find it ironic that Lowell ended his letter against infants entering into a contract (covenant) via baptism with the word Shalom.

[@fooser77]

"God put Abraham into a deep sleep..." Ergo, God: "This has nothing to do with you!" [i.e. cooperation / participation] "This is ALL -- ME!"

[@jimicee6751]

Baptism is akin to circumcision, the sign and seal of God's covenant. The Old Testament was sealed by the circumcision of the males, as an infant or where they were at when joining the covenant. Likewise, baptism is how we enter God's kingdom whether as an infant, or where we are at when coming to faith. The New Testament is a "new and better" covenant because of the work of our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross. Therefore males and females are now included in the promise and benefits of baptism. I tell my anabaptist brothers and sisters that God welcomed infants in the old covenant and continues to work faith through the Holy Spirit to all His creation, infants, adults, male, female, slave and free in the new and better covenant.

[@JimiSurvivor]

Entering the Kingdom without repentance and faith? The Bible does not teach this anywhere

[@sammygomes7381]

Circumcision doesn't save anyone nor does infant baptism, in fact water does not save anyone, unless you're dying of thirst. One receives the Holy Spirit when they hear the gospel (Keys to heaven) and accept Christ as Lord and Savior. No priest or water required for salvation. When we do accept Christ, we should get water baptized which announces to the world our accepting Christ.

[@EvanPriston]

Revelation 19:1-3 KJV 1 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: 2 For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. 3 And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever. 1 Chronicles 16:8 KJV 8 Give thanks unto the Lord, call upon his name, make known his deeds among the people.

[@run4cmt]

We must also look to the OT practice of circumcision. This was done to babies at 8 days old. It was a sign of the promise God had with the people of Israel. It was how they were adopted into the family of God. Flesh was cut away and in Baptise our old nature is cut away and were are made part of God's family. It is the NT covenant all people have with God. We do none of the work.

[@jjmulvihill]

“he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭19‬:‭2‬-‭5‬ ‭KJV‬‬ -Ask the same thing of someone who was paedobaptized. They knew nothing of their baptism, sooo, GET BAPTIZED AGAIN! 😊

[@angiesplace5313]

If babies can be circumcised they can be baptized!

[@reedermh]

But only males are circumcised. So what is the equivalent for females?

[@kristina8559]

I kindly disagree because I did not consent to that faith as a child. That is not adoption if I do not believe in the whole concept of God in general. Its connsensual indoctrination. I was baptized Lutheran 2 months after birth and I do not believe it is something we should do. Believe what you want but when you push your beliefs on children the possible effects of that pressure to uphold that contract of faith may include a distorted sense of self, lack of self confidence, lack of self awareness, increased confusion, and increased anxiety to name a few.

[@MrBeyersdorf]

Dear Kristina8559, We "push" many beliefs on our children, because we love them and want the best for them. For example, we teach our children not to run through a busy parking lot. God’s blessings, Matt

[@postal3212]

It's not a contract with God. It is an identifying with Christ. It is a person that once a believer says I want to walk in a newness with Him. As a baby you can't identify or understand that yet.

[@sammygomes7381]

Satan has a way with words.

[@c.s.froggis9982]

I think if you read Galations 4:1-6 carefully, "adoption" is not meaning what we understand it today in our modern age as being outside a family and being accepted into a family not by blood ours, but rather an older and very different meaning of the term: the inheritance of what we were born into by blood but not legally able to attain until we come of age. Paul says although the Galations (meaning Israelites in general -- note that it is most likely that Galatians were Galileans, as were the Galls and the Celts, and so true Israelites, though dispersed there by God through the Assyrians and Babylonians. This would take too long to prove here, but still it nonetheless helps in understanding this passage.) -- the Galations were indeed by blood children of Abraham and Jacob (Israel), and so heirs to the promise God gave them, but until the fullness of time with Jesus they (and we) had no access to that inheritance -- adoption -- and so were under the guardianship of the law. But through Jesus, Paul tells the Galations, they were adopted, or come into (able to receive) that inheritance of promised salvation. Galations 4 1 What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2 The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3 So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces[a] of the world. 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.[b] 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba,[c] Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.

[@louisacapell]

No. People were legally adopting children at that time and before.

[@c.s.froggis9982]

@@louisacapelloh really? Please show me proof that they did and used the same Greek word for it Paul does. I am not making my definition up. I am simply reading Paul's very clear definition of the process in Galatians.

[@c.s.froggis9982]

@@kevininman2013 The problem with your reading la you Think Paul is talking to non-Israelites. The word "gentile" is a New word made up in English translation for a word that simply and generically means "people," or "tribe." The word is "ethnos" from which we deriva the word "ethnicity." St Paul is actually talking to and about Israelites of th3 ten tribes of the House of Israel, not non-Israelites. Se know this by th3 Old Testament passages Paul is quoting, which only refer to and apply to Israelites. Furthermore, St Paul explains what He means by adoption in Galatians, and bis explanation is quite different from out modern understanding. Sorry, you just can't shoehorn Scofield Christian Zionism into the Bible. The Israeites are in fact white and ruddy as the Bible says, and they are European and the scattered tribes of Israel were redeemed by Jesus in Spain, North Africa, France, England, Cresce, and Rome, as prophecied and fulfilled by the work of Paul and the twelve apostles. God did not abandon Israel, as Paul precisely says, so that whole theology about the Israelites rejecting Jesus and the non Israelites getting redeemed instead is a brunch of anti-christ garbage.

[@c.s.froggis9982]

@@kevininman2013 I am not addressing baptism at all. I am addressing the anachronistic use of the word "adoption." In my reply to you, I also mention then erroneous use of the made-up word "gentile," since most people love to tie the incorrect use of both those terms together to come up with a zionist theology that undermines the Biblical and historical fact that God did indeed redeem Israel, who were in the Greek world, having been scattered and exiled there by the Assyrians, and once redeemed they became the Roman Catholic Church and spread the gospel to the world. (Then 1500 years later Lutherans showed up. Then in the 1800s Scofield showed up with Christian Zionism. Then in the late 1800s and after the World Wars you get the false, antichrist fraud Israel of 1948, who is really Gog and Magog and not Israel at all, creating the one world government to serve Satan.) Either you don't know what my point is or you just don't want to deal with it. But it is not a straw man. If you don't know what my point is, I'm not sure why you chose to argue with me. Look at the context what Paul is saying. He defines his use of the word "adoption" in context. He is describing adoption as the process whereby a son comes into his inheritance rights, until which time he is no better than a slave. He is not talking about someone not of the family becoming a member of the family through a government process. That's a much later concept from what I can tell. Paul is addressing Israelites (not non-Israelites) being redeemed and thus becoming heirs to salvation.

[@c.s.froggis9982]

@@kevininman2013 What is the straw man? He is saying that adoption means what it means today, that one family takes a child from a different family and brings that child in his own family. St Paul, however, if you read Galatians, clearly explains the process of a son coming into inheritance. This is a very different meaning. Yet the good doctor, as most do, wants to substitute today's meaning over St. Paul's. I suggest that he is making this mistake due to a larger mistake , which is assuming that Jesus, despite the promise He would redeem Israel, actually rejected Israel and saved non-Israel instead and he did so by "adoption." This is erroneous all the way around. Jesus did redeem Israel as St. Paul clearly states in Romans 9-11, and Jesus did this by a promised inheritance -- or the process of "adoption."

[@Englishkin]

Baptism is not a "contract" that depends on our strength to fulfill it. God's Holy Spirit is the only One Who can fulfill the "contract". Baptism is the "seal" of the Holy Spirit on us. It is God's protection of us, not our impossible (and actually the most faithless) burden of attaining Godliness (Ezekiel 28:15 KJV).

[@raykidder906]

Is the reception of water baptism likened to the enrollment into a medical care program? If so, is it appropriate to enroll a baby into a pediatric care program, or should the baby wait until the age of reason to decide for himself whether or not to receive such medical care?

[@sammygomes7381]

Water baptism doesn't save, We are saved by the Holy Spirit when we repent and confess Christ as Lord and Savior and follow Him. Again, no water required.

[@ShonkySquad]

>Burgers don't feed people. We are fed by salad. No beef required. The Bible doesn't say that baptism ALONE saves, but baptism is one of God's ordained means of Grace, along with the Lord's Supper and hearing of the word. (Plus, 1 Peter 3:21 says "baptism now saves you" so...) Your statement is a little worrying, "we're saved *when we*..." is to add works to the Gospel. We're saved when God does the saving for us.

[@VndNvwYvvSvv]

Water isn't required but it does save. The faith in it now saves. Plenty of scripture about it. Too often people try to argue "water doesn't save", which is really just a strawman.

[@sammygomes7381]

@@VndNvwYvvSvv Purely symbolic. We are saved by accepting Jesus as Lord and savior at which point we receive the Holy Spirit. Read Act 10:44-48 and tell me when they received the Holy Spirit, before or after the water?

[@VndNvwYvvSvv]

@sammygomes7381 Again, special circumstances are outliers, not the rule. And they are inseparable. Water and the spirit. When everyone was commanded to be baptized, NOBODY took that as "purely symbolic". You cannot separate the two, just as you cannot separate true faith and the willingness to be obedient.

[@VndNvwYvvSvv]

@sammygomes7381 I love how most of my comments vanish. Especially when I use specific terminology and cite verses. Evil platform. S of S runs it...

[@chadsmith5551]

Baptism is a covenant between the individual and God. A covenant is is a two promise. The individual must be capable of making an independent decision. So, infant baptism is an abomination. Infants are saved in Christ until the age of accountability.

[@j.sethfrazer]

The Anabaptists were just a bunch of irrational, radical fundamentalists. NONE of the Reformers liked the Anabaptists. Not a single one. That really should say A LOT for Evangelical Americans who think their Baptist churches most accurately represent Apostolic Theology, because if it doesn’t even represent historical theology properly, then why on earth would it somehow be in any way consistent with the theology of Jesus and the Apostles? I think that kind of assumption is just too far fetched for my taste.

[@toddstevens9667]

Jesus was hated by everyone too. That’s why everyone was demanding His death. So what’s your point? Jesus must’ve been wrong too?

[@j.sethfrazer]

@@toddstevens9667, What an incredibly stupid argument. Firsts off, wrong. Jesus was NOT “hated by everyone.” He got into it with the religious elites of the day and was politically sold out to the ruling Roman authorities for charges of blasphemy and a CROWD in Jerusalem wanted Him killed because the Sanhedrin said so. That’s nowhere near l the same thing as saying everyone hated Him. If “everyone” really hated Jesus, then Christianity would have never survived after the crucifixion. Second off, you’re making a massive category error here. The Baptist church is primarily a 17th century reformed denomination with roots in a 16th century cult movement known as the Anabaptists. They are a movement that has historically struggled retaining a large portion of orthodox Christian tradition due to an underlying biblicism (a “Bible alone!”-ism) in their thinking. They are not a tradition with a consistent, foundational agreement to the historic faith itself.

[@toddstevens9667]

@@j.sethfrazer You have no idea what you’re talking about. I am very well aware that not EVERYONE hated Jesus. There were a few disciples in the Upper Room at the beginning of Acts. I was just making a point: Just because you’re hated doesn’t mean you’re wrong. It might mean you’re right!! And I made no “category errors”. Lol. How my students would love to hear that charge 🤪 But you’re knowledge of European history is pretty sketchy and highly skewed to your source biases. I have taught modern European history at the university level for longer than you’ve probably been alive 🤓 I have literally heard it all. But Anabaptists we’re not cultists. I’m actually laughing out loud as I type it. They disagreed with the Lutheran stream of reform, but were themselves a stream of reform that was rooted in a more thoroughgoing biblicism than Luther’s “By Scipture Alone.” I disagree with the anabaptist on many points. But they were not crazy cultists. Luther thought so though. Anyway, it’s been a pleasure chatting with you. Feel free to attack me to your heart’s desire. It doesn’t make you any more correct, or me any less correct. You might wanna try reading some less biased source material though. Have a great day. 😀

[@j.sethfrazer]

@@toddstevens9667 Yeah, I got that. You’re trying to use my logic against me. What the hell ever. Never mind how Jesus and Anabaptists are thoroughly different things. Never mind how the foundation of Christianity and 15th century Reformation movements are completely different things. Nooo, since Jesus was hated, I guess that means we’re supposed to hear out under-educated, spiritist, enthusiast dumb asses like Thomas Müntzer because they were hated too. Nonsense. He was a cultist. His theology and firm stance on re-Baptism emulated that of Marcionites, Paulianists, and Montanists. He was a heretic in the truest sense and deserved every bit of Luther’s firm rejection. Wake up.

[@toddstevens9667]

@@j.sethfrazer My goodness! You’re very excitable. You might wanna consider calming down on this topic. Our disagreement aside, I very much appreciate Martin Luther. He was a great man. And his Bondage of the Will is my all-time favorite book. I required every student I taught on Early Modern Europe to read it and write papers on it. I’ve probably read it in its entirety upwards of 100 times. It’s brilliant. And I occasionally required my students to read portions from his commentaries on both Romans and Galatians. So I’m not attacking him. I just disagree with him on Baptism and the Eucharist. I think he made practical compromises in order to appeal to the German Catholic peasantry. That’s just an opinion. Anyway, thanks for the chat. But you might wanna give the overblown hyperbole and cutting sarcasm a break. But your comment certainly did remind me of Luther’s premise to Bondage of the Will. But I’m certainly no Erasmus.

[@sulongenjop7436]

An infant originated from a contact between a sperm and an egg...so the infant is sinless. How can a sperm or egg be sinful???😂😂😂😂😂

[@ethanjd314]

Unbelievers are never baptized in the Bible, let alone babies, so what is the purpose of baptism in your view, if your think we should baptize unbelievers and babies.

[@ethanjd314]

Should we run around pouring water on everyone’s heads and yelling, “You’re baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit!” before they tackle us?

[@chibiSD]

Do you rely on spirit to understand teachings (baptism) of bible or do you simply believe and know how to read (flesh)? So because there is no specific instance babies baptized infant you say infant baptism is heresy.

[@ethanjd314]

Michael Munsell Sorry, I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. I want to rely on the Spirit to understand Biblical teachings.

[@Hypnotoad206]

Ethan De Ruby people need to understand what baptism really is... it is NOT “adoption”... in the same context about how disciples are to have faith like children, Christ says “let them come to me”; clearly a choice. The apostles were commanded to go into all the world and make disciples.. baptizing them... can an infant be a disciple?

[@juliebless7119]

@@Hypnotoad206 So, I am not a trained theologian, but one "proof text" supporting infant baptism worth contemplating is Colassians 2:11 and 12 which says that "we were circumcised by Christ having been buried with him in baptism..." What circumcision was to the Jewish people is easy to research. Although it could be done anytime it was most often done on the 8th day after the baby was born and did not require the child's consent. It seems like an equivalency is being made in this verse. Further, Acts 16:33, Acts 18:8, Roman's 6:4 all say that entire households of people were baptized. Presumably, some of those people must have been infants. Finally, Acts 2:28, 29 says that the promise is "for you and your children." Not sure what your thoughts might be regarding these verses. In Christs love...

[@billyjack3678]

I would like to correct this idea that you are forgiven of your sins in water baptism. The truth is all sins were forgiven at the cross, water baptism does nothing to change that.

[@smarterworkout]

sorry gave thumbs down because he doesn't address the washing away of sin and rebirth. He does not mention the bible passage that specifically mentions the rebirth. child baptism should be called child blessing. baptism is a voluntary action and that is what he is missing.

[@AZVIDE0Z]

Lol. Silly Baptists

[@echoesofthepast-w1u]

Infant baptism isn't scriptural, it is simply a man made doctrine. Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[@echoesofthepast-w1u]

@@mpkropf5062 please share the scriptures that state infants were baptized.

[@echoesofthepast-w1u]

@@mpkropf5062 So your response is some generalised history and zero scripture. You somehow feel that that supports infant sprinkling? Your eternal life depends on you trusting God's Word. Look closer! Infants can't do this: Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mark 1:5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judæa, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. Acts 2:41 ¶ Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

[@wayneweinschreider5723]

Question: Mark 16:16 says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” In his Pentecost sermon, Peter urged his listeners to be baptized to wash away their sins. I am confused. Is baptism essential for salvation or is it not? Response: There is not one verse in all the Bible that says that failure to be baptized damns the soul, but there are scores of verses declaring that those who do not believe the gospel are lost. Nor is baptism even any part of the gospel. As Paul said, “Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel” (1 Corinthians 1:17; cf. 15:1-4). In Paul’s clear declaration of “the gospel . . . by which . . . we are saved” (1 Corinthians 15:1-4), there is no mention of baptism. It is upon believing the gospel that one is to be baptized (“What doth hinder me to be baptized?. . . . If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest”-Acts 8:36-37). Christ, after His resurrection, sent His disciples forth to preach the gospel worldwide. Of their converts He said, “ . . . baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19). That all who believe (and they alone) are to be baptized could not be clearer. Baptism symbolizes the believer’s identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection: “We are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead . . . we also should walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4). Therefore, baptism in the early church was by immersion: “They went down both into the water” (Acts 8:38-39; etc.). Death could only be symbolized in this type of baptism. Unfortunately, various innovations (e.g., sprinkling instead of immersion) and even heresies were gradually introduced regarding baptism: that one must be saved-indeed, that baptism itself saves the soul, even when administered to infants. Catholics even practice intrauterine baptism of the fetus when there is doubt that they will be born alive. Such heresies became known as the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Most Protestants holding similar beliefs today are not aware that they originated in the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. For centuries before the Reformation, baptismal regeneration was rejected by non-Catholic believers, who taught from Scripture that baptism was only for those who had believed the gospel. Infant baptism was rejected, because infants have neither understood the gospel nor believed in Christ. Those who practiced infant baptism justified it by citing alleged biblical precedent where entire families were baptized, presuming that there were infants among them. That this was not the case can be easily proved. Consider Cornelius’s household: They heard the gospel, believed it, and were baptized. That no infants were involved is clear, for they had all gathered “to hear all things that are commanded thee of God” (Acts 10:33), things that an infant could not understand. “The Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard [and, obviously, understood and believed] the word” (v. 44); and they spoke with tongues (v. 46). That they had “received the Holy Ghost” (v. 47) proved that they were saved. Therefore, Peter baptized them (v. 48). Here is proof both that one is saved without baptism and that only those already saved are to be baptized.  Neither can infant baptism be supported from the case of the Philippian jailer, who “was baptized, he and all his [household]” (Acts 16:33). Again, there were obviously no infants present because Paul and Silas preached the gospel “to all that were in his house” (v. 32), and “all his house” believed (v. 34) and were then baptized. The gospel is not preached to infants, not even by those who baptize them.