Martin Luther and false doctrine on infant baptism.

No Bob, baptizing and teaching is how disciples are made according to the text.
No one is saved by being baptized. According to the Scriptures one has to hear the gospel in order to believe!

Faith doesn't come by being sprinkled as an infant. Faith comes from hearing the gospel preached!

Romans 10
14 How then are they to call on Him in whom they have not believed? How are they to believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? 15 But how are they to preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!”

16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
 
No one is saved by being baptized. According to the Scriptures one has to hear the gospel in order to believe!

Faith doesn't come by being sprinkled as an infant. Faith comes from hearing the gospel preached!

Romans 10
14 How then are they to call on Him in whom they have not believed? How are they to believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? 15 But how are they to preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!”

16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
So making disciples by baptizing and teaching are not Christian disciples? Again Jesus and the Holy Spirit better get their act together and possibly more sleep, their revelation thankfully has you as a chief editor to set the record straight. What a bizarre view of Christianity you have. Baptism is how people enter the church.
Tell me when you teach all Jesus taught as instructed, why do presume the gospel is never taught?
Let's say it together, Baptism now saves us, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Also if 1Peter was the only scripture you ever read, would you still say, baptism does NOT save anyone???
 
Last edited:
Except that one who believes in pedobaptism doesn't have any TRUTH to teach. just theological ERROR.
That's an indirect way of saying that you are the lord and master over Scripture rather than Scripture alone being lord and master over all other writings on earth.

If you object because you are a "believers baptism only," kind of guy then know that sinful men in this life aren't called to determine if another has faith before baptism, and they don't have the ability to do such a thing.

It follows then that sinful men also don't have the ability and are not called to try and judge whether an infant has faith. What matters is that Scripture makes it plain that at least some infants do have faith.

For example, “1. At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2. And He called a child [paidion, infant] to Himself and set him before them, 3. and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children [paidion, infant], you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4. “Whoever then humbles himself as this child [paidion, infant], he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5. And whoever receives one such child [paidion, infant] in My name receives Me; 6. but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:5-6, NASB) (Matthew 18:1-4, NASB)

The contrary to Scripture error being asserted in this thread is by those who deny the grace of God, and would have others deny the grace of God, the unmerited favor of God, to infants because of reasons manufactured solely by their imagination at the devil's instigation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic
So making disciples by baptizing and teaching are not Christian disciples? Again Jesus and the Holy Spirit better get their act together and possibly more sleep, their revelation thankfully has you as a chief editor to set the record straight. What a bizarre view of Christianity you have. Baptism is how people enter the church.
You're the one with the bizarre view of Christianity. After all, you claim that baptism alone saves!

God says that faith is how one is made a child of God. Nowhere in all of Scripture, does God ever say someone is granted faith on the basis of baptism alone.
Tell me when you teach all Jesus taught as instructed, why do presume the gospel is never taught?
So, to be clear. Your pastor preaches the gospel to the infant and then baptizes that infant?

No, of course not. YOU claim that the act of baptizing is "the gospel". Of course it is not.
Let's say it together, Baptism now saves us, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Also if 1Peter was the only scripture you ever read, would you still say, baptism does NOT save anyone???
Yes I would reject the lie that baptism alone saves! The Scriptures repeatedly refute that lie.

Your infants aren't saved by baptism. Nowhere does the Scripture declare that faith is granted to someone who is baptized.

The problem with your view is even worse because you assume that all baptized infants are granted faith. Yet, you can't point to a single verse in which God promises to grant faith to anyone of any age if they get baptized. Further the Scriptures tell us that all who were baptized believed and repented.

Baptism by itself does nothing!
 
You're the one with the bizarre view of Christianity. After all, you claim that baptism alone saves!
The bizarre view of Christianity is the one that determinedly denies what Scripture says. Baptism does now save us through the resurrection of Christ, 2 Peter 3:21-22.

That is not the same as the bizarre illogical misinterpretation of, "baptism alone saves." Why not? Well, we could start with, "through the resurrection of Christ."

The resurrection of Christ did not happen apart from His incarnation and crucifixion, right? So the Apostle says all who have been baptized have been united with Christ in His death and resurrection, see Romans 6:3ff.

God has also staked His name and word on baptism. For example, disciple all peoples, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them all I have commanded, see Matthew 28:19-20. The terms baptizing and teaching are participles. They tell us what it means to disciple, the verb, a person or people in the context of Matthew 28.

God says that faith is how one is made a child of God.
The ones denying the Christian faith are those who deny what Scripture says about Christ and baptism. See above.

All the unbelievers in this regard need to ask themselves this question, "Does the Holy Spirit understand His word, God's word, better than I do?" If they answer yes then it is necessarily true that baptism does now save us through the resurrection of Christ.

It also means baptism is not a work of man, just as the passage indicates. The acting nominative is baptism not the one being baptized or the one administering the baptism. The transitive verb is save, and the passive object of the transitive verb is us.

Salvation is something done to us. If you are a KJV reader or another translation that follows the KJV translation then know that, "save yourselves...," is a passive verb, literally, "be saved..."

Nowhere in all of Scripture, does God ever say someone is granted faith on the basis of baptism alone.
You've got the, "baptism alone," part wrong. See above.

And it is the role of the Holy Spirit to grant and sustain faith. And that is what the Spirit does. Unless a person mistakenly worships a God unmighty there is no reason to imagine that the Holy Spirit does not do so.

So, to be clear. Your pastor preaches the gospel to the infant and then baptizes that infant?
So to be clear, God unites people with Christ in His death and resurrection in baptism, Romans 6:3ff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic
You certainly can't claim to believe in Sola Scriptura.
Its time to point out again the proverbial elephant in the room. The ones that can't legitimately claim to practice sola scriptura in this thread are the co-religionists who adamantly deny what Scripture says in order to tell a story of their imagination about adults and infants, and Christ and baptism.

For example, Scripture says infants can have faith and they are capable of receiving the kingdom of heaven. Additionally, if the disciples want to enter the kingdom of heaven at all then they'll have to convert and become like the infants, and whoever humbles himself like this infant is the greatest in heaven.

1. At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2. And He called a child [paidion, infant] to Himself and set him before them, 3. and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children [paidion, infant], you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4. “Whoever then humbles himself as this child [paidion, infant], he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5. And whoever receives one such child [paidion, infant] in My name receives Me; 6. but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:5-6, NASB) (Matthew 18:1-4, NASB)


You guys assert the opposite. You guys want the infants to measure up to your imaginative story about adults, otherwise, they aren't suitable candidates for baptism, etc.


Scripture says baptism does now save us through the resurrection of Christ. You guys assert the opposite, namely, baptism does not save us through the resurrection of Christ.


Scripture says people are to be baptized and taught. You guys inventing your own categories assert that infants, who are people, are not to be baptized and they can be taught about their ears but not about Christ who knows them.


With all that imagination you guys impose on Scripture it isn't surprising that you then insist on answers that conform to your imaginative categories rather than what Scripture actually says.


For example, Peter told the mockers whose hearts had been pricked and asked what they should do? “38. Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39. “For the promise is [present indicative] for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”” (Acts 2:38-39, NASB)


The promise is a present indicative, a standing ongoing promise, rather than a future indicative which some would have others believe, that is, it does not say the promise will be unto you and your children when they are old enough and measure up to someone's confused or unbelieving standard.

Etc., etc., etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic
That is true it does go by the lunar calendar..and anyone who is willing to disregard their denominational biases, preconceived notions, etc..that the ‘Mary’ that the likes of Bloody Marty, lutherists, Anglicans, and the Catholics deify and sinfully refer to as ‘the mother of God’, is not the Mary of the NT, but rather, just another name for the pagan lunar goddess Ishtar, aka Ashtoreth, Astarte, Semiramis, Inanna, and so-on. Name always varies by culture, but the same lunar goddess. Which explains why lutherists hold to many pagan doctrines such as infant sprinkling..wiccans also observe that practice.
The error of thinking it is an error to describe Mary as the mother of God is based on an out of context reading and interpretation.

The description of Mary as the mother of God was to refute the Arians who claimed that there was a time when the Son was not. In other words, it was intended primarily as a statement about Jesus. It was categorically not a statement about Mary as a goddess.


You rightfully affirmed Mary as the mother of God elsewhere in this thread when you posted that the one person of Christ is God. You cited John 8:58. “Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”” (John 8:58, NASB)


The interpretive key to rightfully understanding all of Scripture is found in Luke 24:44ff and also John 5:39. The Scriptures testify to Jesus, the Anointed, or Messiah.


“44. Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45. Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46. and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47. and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:44-47, NASB)


““You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;” (John 5:39, NASB)


And so Paul led by the Holy Spirit would write, “By common confession, great is the mystery [or sacrament for those who use Latin or have a history that includes the use of the Latin language] of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.” (1 Timothy 3:16, NASB)


If someone wants to object that Scripture never literalistically says Mary is the mother of God, then there are multiple passages which state it in a non literalistic manner. For example, “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6, NASB)


and ““Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.”” (Matthew 1:23, NASB)

ETC.
 
Then stop writing such silly things as this: "The things of God are not scholastically discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14." after I wrote that we studied Romans in midweek Bible class.




No, just implied it.


Every day is the Lord's day, really.


and we do not "revere" Sunday, though we do recognize it as the day of the week on which Jesus rose from the dead.


That's nice, but Jesus IS fully God and in one sense, Mary is the mother of God in His Incarnation. But as I wrote, I don't like that title as it is too easily misconstrued, and makes it sound as if Mary birthed the entire Godhead.


I suggest you look in the mirror before you accuse of doing or being something. "Physician, heal thyself...."


it is very easy to misunderstand, since the title can make it sound as if Mary birthed the Triune Godhead. Hence, why I think it is better not to use that title of Mary, but that she is the mother of the Son of God in His humanity.


Wow, such vitriol!


Why should I do your work for you? Please link us to where Luther did so. But his beliefs about Mary did change over the years. In fact, he wrote that the RCC makes entirely too much of the mother, forgetting her Son in the process. And that if one were to forget someone, it would better to be the mother, rather than the Son (paraphrased).


No, you don't. You are not God and do not know our hearts the way HE does. It is boastful to claim you do.


Sure. But you don't know anyone personally on here, what they are like in their daily lives, etc. In fact, they have been extremely polite and tolerant of you and your....extremism.


In all Christians everywhere? Every single one who claims to be of Christ Jesus? You have met them all, talked with all of them, observed them in their daily lives? All of the many millions of them all over the world?

Thank you for demonstrating what I just wrote. I have seen the extremism in your posts against posters who have been very tolerant and patient with you.


No, you don't. You just THINK you do.


And it is amazing that some people cannot see that they are acting in the same way as those whom they condemn--or act even worse.

You may want to read 1 Peter 3:15-16.


No, you cannot tell with 100% confidence. You are not God.


So, are you afraid to read the sermon? YOU have claimed to know what our church services are like because you once visited a Presbyterian church.....does that make sense? But if you read the sermon, you will then have a better idea of what we believe, teach, and confess. You will see what is emphasized in our church--and it isn't Luther.

Good! Then you don't need to teach US. The HS has already done so, through the Word of God.

So, do you think you are the only one on here who is right and the rest of us are wrong...is that it?
I see my response to this was deleted, but in short, if only you all held Bloody Marty to the same standard you all hold me to. The lutherist religion would go out of business.

Vitriol? LOL..See Bloody Marty’s writings. The threats of violence and calling for oppression on Jews and anyone else who didn’t submit to him. Of particular interest to you, his writings on women. Extremism? The founder of your religion had innocent women, girls, and men put to death for disagreeing with his false doctrines.

Oh if you all only held your leader BM to just a small fraction of the standard you hold me to.

If the HS has already done so, you wouldn’t be flying under the name of one who shed innocent blood and taught pagan Catholic falsehood. Even had innocents put to death for not adhering to said falsehood.
 
Last edited:
The error of thinking it is an error to describe Mary as the mother of God is based on an out of context reading and interpretation.

The description of Mary as the mother of God was to refute the Arians who claimed that there was a time when the Son was not. In other words, it was intended primarily as a statement about Jesus. It was categorically not a statement about Mary as a goddess.


You rightfully affirmed Mary as the mother of God elsewhere in this thread when you posted that the one person of Christ is God. You cited John 8:58. “Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”” (John 8:58, NASB)


The interpretive key to rightfully understanding all of Scripture is found in Luke 24:44ff and also John 5:39. The Scriptures testify to Jesus, the Anointed, or Messiah.


“44. Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45. Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46. and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47. and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:44-47, NASB)


““You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;” (John 5:39, NASB)


And so Paul led by the Holy Spirit would write, “By common confession, great is the mystery [or sacrament for those who use Latin or have a history that includes the use of the Latin language] of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.” (1 Timothy 3:16, NASB)


If someone wants to object that Scripture never literalistically says Mary is the mother of God, then there are multiple passages which state it in a non literalistic manner. For example, “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6, NASB)


and ““Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.”” (Matthew 1:23, NASB)

ETC.
It is error to think John 8:58 has anything to do with the false manmade doctrine of Mary deification. And that title given to her by some factions of the religious system is deification. John 8:58 says before Abraham was, I am..not before Abraham was, Mary was. Mary is nothing but a lowly mortal with sin like any other lowly mortal.

Wrong again, the key to understanding scripture is 1 John 2:27, John 16:13.
 
It is error to think John 8:58 has anything to do with the false manmade doctrine of Mary deification. And that title given to her by some factions of the religious system is deification. John 8:58 says before Abraham was, I am..not before Abraham was, Mary was. Mary is nothing but a lowly mortal with sin like any other lowly mortal.

Wrong again, the key to understanding scripture is 1 John 2:27, John 16:13.
It's error to think that the title Mother of God has anything with your anachronism.
 
It's error to think that the title Mother of God has anything with your anachronism.
The title is deification of a mortal with sin and filth that requires a Savior (which is Christ not water) like any other mortal human. Either that, or it lowers God. Feel free to luthersplain it away all you like but it doesn’t make it any less blasphemous.

But it is error to think that the ‘Mary’ of the Catholic and lutherist religions is the wife of Joseph, who would be horrified at such titles. The ‘Mary’ of the Catholic and lutherist religions is actually Asherah, a pagan lunar deity known as the ‘queen of heaven’. Perhaps that was the inspiration for your avatar, eh?
 
The title is deification of a mortal with sin and filth that requires a Savior (which is Christ not water) like any other mortal human. Either that, or it lowers God. Feel free to luthersplain it away all you like but it doesn’t make it any less blasphemous.
That isn't the historical context. According to Pelikan the earliest incontestable use of the description was by bishop Alexander of Alexandria in 324 against the Arians, The Christian Tradition, Vol I, p.241-243 (c)Chicago.
But it is error to think that the ‘Mary’ of the Catholic and lutherist religions is the wife of Joseph, who would be horrified at such titles. The ‘Mary’ of the Catholic and lutherist religions is actually Asherah, a pagan lunar deity known as the ‘queen of heaven’. Perhaps that was the inspiration for your avatar, eh?
This particular description of Mary came about because of a conflict centuries after the death of Joseph and Mary. In any case, you're arguing with a description that is consistent with Scripture.

Did you find something inconsistent with the description and the passages previously cited? If so then what was it and how do you know from Scripture? Otherwise, your reply is all assertion without substance.

Btw, are your claims based Hyslop?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nic
It is error to think John 8:58 has anything to do with the false manmade doctrine of Mary deification. And that title given to her by some factions of the religious system is deification. John 8:58 says before Abraham was, I am..not before Abraham was, Mary was. Mary is nothing but a lowly mortal with sin like any other lowly mortal.

Wrong again, the key to understanding scripture is 1 John 2:27, John 16:13.
If you aren't going to believe the clear witness of Jesus regarding the key to correctly understanding Scripture then who or what are you going to believe? Passages which are taken out of context to deny the plain words of Christ which the Holy Spirit led the Apostle and the Evangelist to record?

You aren't trying to pit the Holy Spirit against the Holy Spirit, are you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic
@TrvmpleVnSnvkes
If your comments are based on Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons then know that it is basically an exercise in story telling.

Ralph Woodrow who used to make money on a book based on The Two Babylons titled Babylon Mystery Religion explains some of the errors of Hislop here. He found them by researching Hislop's footnotes.

The bottom line is Hislop's work is riddled with errors and story telling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic
That isn't the historical context. According to Pelikan the earliest incontestable use of the description was by bishop Alexander of Alexandria in 324 against the Arians, The Christian Tradition, Vol I, p.241-243 (c)Chicago.

This particular description of Mary came about because of a conflict centuries after the death of Joseph and Mary. In any case, you're arguing with a description that is consistent with Scripture.

Did you find something inconsistent with the description and the passages previously cited? If so then what was it and how do you know from Scripture? Otherwise, your reply is all assertion without substance.

Btw, are your claims based Hyslop?
My claims are based on comparing scripture, with the manmade religious system and the fact that the two are rarely in agreement. And the similarities between churchianity and ancient pagan religions (over-glorification of water baptism anyone? MITHRAISM!!)

Who was, and was not born on Dec. 25? Where did SUNday worship come from? None of that and many other aspects of the manmade religious system are found nowhere in scripture but rather, pagan solar deity and lunar goddess worship. The latter is your ‘Mary’.
 
If you aren't going to believe the clear witness of Jesus regarding the key to correctly understanding Scripture then who or what are you going to believe? Passages which are taken out of context to deny the plain words of Christ which the Holy Spirit led the Apostle and the Evangelist to record?

You aren't trying to pit the Holy Spirit against the Holy Spirit, are you?
You don’t even know what Matthew 5:19 refers to. So simple a child could understand. So it is definitely not your place to accuse anyone of taking scripture out of context or lecture others on correctly interpreting scripture. In fact your religion is founded on eisegesis. And pagan Catholic dogma.

You get your interpretation of scripture from the lutherist higher ups. Not one single person ever became a lutherist by reading the Bible for themselves on their own. Guaranteed. It’s all about indoctrination.
 
@TrvmpleVnSnvkes
If your comments are based on Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons then know that it is basically an exercise in story telling.

Ralph Woodrow who used to make money on a book based on The Two Babylons titled Babylon Mystery Religion explains some of the errors of Hislop here. He found them by researching Hislop's footnotes.

The bottom line is Hislop's work is riddled with errors and story telling.
Same for the lutherist religion. Errors and storytelling.

Actually, much of what I have said here comes straight from the mouths of wiccans, who hold many of the same doctrines your religion does. They just call your ‘Mary’ Inanna..and they sprinkle their babies at home rather than at a religious building. Other than that, many other similarities..ever wonder why wiccans love Easter and Christmas so much? Different names but same false god(s) being lifted up.
 
Back
Top