How can a Baby enter into the contract of baptism? 

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

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

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.

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.

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

Exactly my thoughts :)

As a Christian, it is not.

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.

@@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.

@@brucedavenport7016infants 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.

@@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?

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

True.

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

Here's a video answer: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4o9GfKiC4Bs.html

@@PastorBryanWolfmueller thanks, Pastor

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

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!"

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?

@@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.

@@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. 😀

@@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.

@@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.

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.

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

@@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.

@@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?

@@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.

For me the difference in baby baptism to baby dedication is like knowing the difference of the “ real presence of Jesus “ and those who think it’s only a symbol! One is real and other is fake. This applies to both of these examples!

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

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.

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

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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."

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

@@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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

@@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...