Comments on: Evidence for Infant Baptism in the Early Church http://cyberbrethren.com/2009/08/20/evidence-for-infant-baptism-in-the-early-church/ Devoted to authentic Lutheranism Wed, 23 May 2012 21:13:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Mike Baker http://cyberbrethren.com/2009/08/20/evidence-for-infant-baptism-in-the-early-church/comment-page-1/#comment-7993 Mike Baker Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:15:11 +0000 http://cyberbrethren.com/?p=2851#comment-7993 The answer to that arguement, Kelly; is to take them to the Scriptures. If baptism really is our work, then why does it always appear inbedded right in the middle of so many key verses that speak about our salvation--which is God's work alone? The examples are numberous. It's hard to argue when there are so many. That is what changed my mind on the issue. The answer to that arguement, Kelly; is to take them to the Scriptures. If baptism really is our work, then why does it always appear inbedded right in the middle of so many key verses that speak about our salvation–which is God’s work alone? The examples are numberous. It’s hard to argue when there are so many.

That is what changed my mind on the issue.

]]> By: Kelly http://cyberbrethren.com/2009/08/20/evidence-for-infant-baptism-in-the-early-church/comment-page-1/#comment-7985 Kelly Fri, 21 Aug 2009 07:12:08 +0000 http://cyberbrethren.com/?p=2851#comment-7985 That's not just irony, Steve; it's a simple reason that they reject the idea that Baptism saves. Precisely because they do believe Baptism to be a human work, of course they'll think a church that believes that Baptism saves is trying to encourage salvation by works. The very simple explanation that we believe Baptism saves because it's *God's* work and not ours is quite mind-blowing to hear if you're not used to it, and completely blows up the preconceived definitions, including how the Gospel can be apprehended. That’s not just irony, Steve; it’s a simple reason that they reject the idea that Baptism saves. Precisely because they do believe Baptism to be a human work, of course they’ll think a church that believes that Baptism saves is trying to encourage salvation by works. The very simple explanation that we believe Baptism saves because it’s *God’s* work and not ours is quite mind-blowing to hear if you’re not used to it, and completely blows up the preconceived definitions, including how the Gospel can be apprehended.

]]> By: Mark in Spokane http://cyberbrethren.com/2009/08/20/evidence-for-infant-baptism-in-the-early-church/comment-page-1/#comment-7984 Mark in Spokane Fri, 21 Aug 2009 06:32:15 +0000 http://cyberbrethren.com/?p=2851#comment-7984 There is a strand of practice in the early Church that thought that the correct time for baptism was nearest to death. The idea was that since baptism provided for the full remission of sins, it was best to wait until one was on the way out so as not to "waste" the grace of forgiveness that came with the sacrament. This was a prevalent view in North Africa during the time of Augustine, I believe. It is also one of the reasons that the Emperor Constantine wasn't baptized until he was on his deathbed. The penitential disciple of the Church at the time was so severe that the penances could last for years. Of course, that's not a correct use of baptism, but it is an informative glimpse into one type of Christian practice and view of baptism. For at least some Christians in the 4th century A.D. the idea of infant or adult only baptism wasn't really what the debate was about. The debate was about baptizing people who weren't noticeably on the way out or baptizing people when they were on death's door. There is a strand of practice in the early Church that thought that the correct time for baptism was nearest to death. The idea was that since baptism provided for the full remission of sins, it was best to wait until one was on the way out so as not to “waste” the grace of forgiveness that came with the sacrament. This was a prevalent view in North Africa during the time of Augustine, I believe. It is also one of the reasons that the Emperor Constantine wasn’t baptized until he was on his deathbed. The penitential disciple of the Church at the time was so severe that the penances could last for years.

Of course, that’s not a correct use of baptism, but it is an informative glimpse into one type of Christian practice and view of baptism. For at least some Christians in the 4th century A.D. the idea of infant or adult only baptism wasn’t really what the debate was about. The debate was about baptizing people who weren’t noticeably on the way out or baptizing people when they were on death’s door.

]]> By: Lindsey http://cyberbrethren.com/2009/08/20/evidence-for-infant-baptism-in-the-early-church/comment-page-1/#comment-7965 Lindsey Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:59:05 +0000 http://cyberbrethren.com/?p=2851#comment-7965 I had alot of friends in high school who went to a nondenominational Bible church. We occasionally discussed our differing views of baptism. While they believed that infants and children were sinners, I got mixed responses on what would happen to a child who did not fully "understand" all the intricate workings of how God saves us if the child died before they could rationally and cerebrally "comprehend." While some of them said that the child would go to heaven, others said that they believed their child would go to hell. It was quite sad to witness this, and it made me appreciate the Lutheran belief of baptizing infants because faith is not something that has to be "rationally comprehended" and little children and infants do possess it through the Holy Spirit, who is given at Baptism. I had alot of friends in high school who went to a nondenominational Bible church. We occasionally discussed our differing views of baptism. While they believed that infants and children were sinners, I got mixed responses on what would happen to a child who did not fully “understand” all the intricate workings of how God saves us if the child died before they could rationally and cerebrally “comprehend.” While some of them said that the child would go to heaven, others said that they believed their child would go to hell. It was quite sad to witness this, and it made me appreciate the Lutheran belief of baptizing infants because faith is not something that has to be “rationally comprehended” and little children and infants do possess it through the Holy Spirit, who is given at Baptism.

]]> By: Dennis Peskey http://cyberbrethren.com/2009/08/20/evidence-for-infant-baptism-in-the-early-church/comment-page-1/#comment-7956 Dennis Peskey Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:38:44 +0000 http://cyberbrethren.com/?p=2851#comment-7956 The real issue is Article II of the Augsburg Confession. Are newborn babies sinful? God's Word clearly answers "yes, they are" and are in need of salvation. If we truely believe the biblical teachings of sin affecting all of us, we would not fritter away salvation on false teachings of "free will" or our 'ability' to decide for absolution. We should make all haste to journey to the baptismal waters for the gift of salvation which we desperately need to conquer our sin through the atoning work of Christ accomplished on the Cross. The real issue is Article II of the Augsburg Confession. Are newborn babies sinful? God’s Word clearly answers “yes, they are” and are in need of salvation. If we truely believe the biblical teachings of sin affecting all of us, we would not fritter away salvation on false teachings of “free will” or our ‘ability’ to decide for absolution. We should make all haste to journey to the baptismal waters for the gift of salvation which we desperately need to conquer our sin through the atoning work of Christ accomplished on the Cross.

]]> By: Steve Newell http://cyberbrethren.com/2009/08/20/evidence-for-infant-baptism-in-the-early-church/comment-page-1/#comment-7955 Steve Newell Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:47:17 +0000 http://cyberbrethren.com/?p=2851#comment-7955 In my view, the real issue is not infant baptism but what is baptism. If one's view of baptism as an "ordinance" or something we do after salvation, then infants cannot be baptize since they view baptism as merely a symbol. The irony is that while they treat baptism as a work we do, they accuse those of us who believe it as a means of grace of treating Baptism as something we can to do be saved. Another underlying issue is the role of "free will" in our salvation. You will tend to find those who believe that we have the ability to make a decision for Christ will have a low view of baptism as a means of grace In my view, the real issue is not infant baptism but what is baptism. If one’s view of baptism as an “ordinance” or something we do after salvation, then infants cannot be baptize since they view baptism as merely a symbol. The irony is that while they treat baptism as a work we do, they accuse those of us who believe it as a means of grace of treating Baptism as something we can to do be saved.

Another underlying issue is the role of “free will” in our salvation. You will tend to find those who believe that we have the ability to make a decision for Christ will have a low view of baptism as a means of grace

]]>