st. Worm Posted April 19, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,447 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 45 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/26/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 19, 2006 Oh No Melon and tah, Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation is only available in book form I believe. You have to buy it. Its about $7.00 and available from the large Christian book distributors and Concordia Publishing House. ISBN 0-570-01535-9 I hope you take the opportunity to get one. It is full of biblical references that explain the basic Lutheran perspective on baptism. Keep in mind that while Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and others believe in infant baptism, they do not hold the same views at all about baptism. I do think studying each view from their own perspective is much preferable to playing Bible verse ping pong with the same two or three verses and indicates a real willingness to learn. Blessings, sw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st. Worm Posted April 19, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,447 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 45 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/26/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 19, 2006 "Another issue, and explainatikon that may have already been mentioned in this thread is that infant baptism substituted for circumcision, which was imposed at about the same time in the infant's life." yes, Pax and that version is especially true with regard to the Calvinist covenantal view of baptism. That is why Presbys generally only baptize infants of believers or "covenant children" just as only covenant males were only circumcized in the OT. Circumcision being the sign of God's grace in the OT and baptism being the sign of God's grace in the NT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st. Worm Posted April 19, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,447 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 45 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/26/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 19, 2006 Horizoneast says: "My point all along has been whether infant baptism is right or wrong it is totally unsupported by the word of God. If we can agree on this point then we have no argument. " SW says: Well we don't agree then. If you would like to read Luther's SC with Explanation and then see what Luther really believed about baptism then we can discuss. Also, I keep repeating myself because you cannot seem to grasp that infant baptism does not hinge on whether or not there is an example in the Bible. That is not a sound way to determine doctrine. Also, I find it rather amusing that the last refuge of the fundamentalist is that anything he does not agree with is automatically "man made doctrine". Yet, things like baptizing adults only, age of accountibility and so forth, none of which are biblically supported in the least are somehow doctrines of God. Also, I gather that one of your points is that baptism is by immersion only and that is why you point to the story of the Eunich and Phillip. Well the passage does not indicate immersion in the least. It says both went down into the water so that must mean Phillip baptized both himself and the eunich if "went down into the water" equals immersion. Why would Phillip immerse himself? You also say "Every example of Christian baptism in the Bible was that of an adult." That is simply not a provable statement unless you can demonstrate that the household baptisms did not include any infants and you cannot do that. And once again, you only use your select verses about baptism and do not touch on several verses that provide other information about baptism such as Peter's "baptism that now saves you also". How convenient to ignore that one. I am afraid I am not impressed with either your research methods or your exegesis. You make your list of "proofs" but none of them really prove anything. sw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismarc Posted April 19, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 136 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/06/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/20/1950 Author Share Posted April 19, 2006 horizoneast said, There are certainly no Scriptural proofs for the practice of infant baptism and there are absolutely no examples of infants being baptized in the NT. Why is there not a verse in the Bible such as the following?: "You must believe only in those doctrines which are found and clearly taught in Scripture alone and refuse to listen to any church or tradition which goes beyond the letter of Scripture (even if it is doesn't contradict Scripture), as God's written Word is more authoritative than the church and the apostolic tradition, passed down from our Lord Jesus." Nothing remotely approaching this can be found in Holy Scripture, but we do find much about the authority of the Church and the presence of an authoritative apostolic tradition, even an authoritative oral tradition. Why is that, if sola Scriptura is true? And -- this being the case -- what makes Protestants so completely "sure" about sola Scriptura, so much so that they base their entire system on it? Is abortion wrong? What Scripture forbids it explicitly? ....in reality the NT plainly teaches baptism is an Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Putnam Posted April 19, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 32 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/06/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/18/1929 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Horizoneast says: "My point all along has been whether infant baptism is right or wrong it is totally unsupported by the word of God. If we can agree on this point then we have no argument. " SW says: Well we don't agree then. If you would like to read Luther's SC with Explanation and then see what Luther really believed about baptism then we can discuss. Also, I keep repeating myself because you cannot seem to grasp that infant baptism does not hinge on whether or not there is an example in the Bible. That is not a sound way to determine doctrine. Also, I find it rather amusing that the last refuge of the fundamentalist is that anything he does not agree with is automatically "man made doctrine". Yet, things like baptizing adults only, age of accountibility and so forth, none of which are biblically supported in the least are somehow doctrines of God. Also, I gather that one of your points is that baptism is by immersion only and that is why you point to the story of the Eunich and Phillip. Well the passage does not indicate immersion in the least. It says both went down into the water so that must mean Phillip baptized both himself and the eunich if "went down into the water" equals immersion. Why would Phillip immerse himself? For total immersion, the minister of the baptism may very well "go down" at least up to his waist and immerse the person being baptized. Interestingly, the didache specifies that if a sufficient amount of water is not available, then a pouring on of the water is acceptable. Of course you know that either method is valid so long as the water flows with the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, Amen" (Also specified in the didache You also say "Every example of Christian baptism in the Bible was that of an adult." That is simply not a provable statement unless you can demonstrate that the household baptisms did not include any infants and you cannot do that. Or a specific prohibition of baptizing infants and very young children. And once again, you only use your select verses about baptism and do not touch on several verses that provide other information about baptism such as Peter's "baptism that now saves you also". How convenient to ignore that one. Or, the famous John 3:3 to Nicodemus, that for one to be "born again" (or "born from above") one must be born of "water and spirit." I get involved in some good discussions with that one! I am afraid I am not impressed with either your research methods or your exegesis. You make your list of "proofs" but none of them really prove anything. sw Once I believed in the wonderful sacrament of the Eucharist, a most wonderful Eurika for me, all other doctrines fell into place for me, and I became a Catholic, the teaching of baptism and the other sacraments that are eschewed by much of Protestantism, fell completely into place. God bless, PAX Bill+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismarc Posted April 19, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 136 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/06/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/20/1950 Author Share Posted April 19, 2006 tah said, yes we are born corrupt .... Then you believe in original sin? ...just because my parents had me baptised when I was an infant does not make me right with God... It cleanses the baby from original sin (right with God). Does my covenant with Christ cover my child until the day he chooses... Yes, if baptized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismarc Posted April 19, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 136 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/06/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/20/1950 Author Share Posted April 19, 2006 horizoneast said, Why would Meyer write that infant baptism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st. Worm Posted April 19, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,447 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 45 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/26/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 19, 2006 horizoneast says: "Let's ask Mr. Luther Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st. Worm Posted April 19, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,447 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 45 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/26/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 19, 2006 Horizoneast says: "I read you last post and will address only your original OP subject regarding infant baptism." SW says: Amazing. You accuse the poster of having no biblical support and then you refuse to respond to the biblical support he supplies. Its quite a game you play here. You apparently read posts and then respond with a totally irrelevent answer. Amazing. And then you invite him to present more biblical support which we presume you will also ignore and respond with more mumbo jumbo. Amazing. This is EXACTLY what you did to me weeks ago on a different thread but the same subject. I think the readers now realize why I did not waste more time responding to you on this thread with pure biblical information. You simply ignore it. Amazing. sw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismarc Posted April 19, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 136 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/06/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/20/1950 Author Share Posted April 19, 2006 horizoneast said, chrismarc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts