@HansFiene Dang, I totally remember when I was a Baptist and read all of these passages and thought, “This can’t mean what it sounds like it means, can it?!” As the Lord tore down my theological presuppositions with his own word I suddenly became Lutheran.
The Bible says "baptism now saves you." And sure, you can argue that this doesn't mean what it sounds like.
The Bible says that baptism makes us dead to sin and alive to Christ. And sure, you can argue that this doesn't mean what it sounds like.
The Bible refers to salvation coming through "the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit." And sure, you can argue that this watery language does not refer to the watery-thing Jesus instituted in Matthew 28 and said that all Christians were to receive.
The Bible speaks of being born again of "water and the Spirit." And sure, you can argue that this refers not to baptism, where the Holy Spirit works in the water, but to the water of amniotic fluid (that is, the natural birth) and then another birth, the non-watery rebirth of regeneration through faith by the power of the Holy Spirit.
The Bible speaks quite clearly of infant faith. And sure, you can argue that these passages don't mean what it sounds like.
The Bible thematically links baptism with circumcision, which was performed on Israelite boys when they were 8 days old. And sure, you can argue that this link doesn't mean what it sounds like.
The Bible says that baptism "is for you and your children." And sure, you can argue that this doesn't mean what it sounds like.
The Bible says to make disciples through teaching and baptizing "all nations." Children were inarguably included in the Jewish understanding of "nations." And sure, you can argue that a different definition of "nations" is being used when speaking of baptism.
The Bible describes entire households being baptized. "Households" is a term that inarguably included children if they were present. And sure, you can argue that all of the households described as being baptized did not include children and that there was no reason for Luke to note this if we were not supposed to think that we should baptize infants.
But the problem is that, to deny baptismal regeneration and to reject infant baptism, you have to argue ALL of these things. Each and every one of them.
So, what is more likely: that you are forcing false assumptions about baptism onto the Bible or that every single passage describing baptism and infant faith doesn't mean what it says? What's more likely: that you have a flawed hermeneutic or that passage after passage after passage about baptism and infant faith needs a ton of clarification in order to unlock its true meaning?
Lutherans are so crazy. I mean, who else gets together and belts out: Let me depart this life Confiding in my Savior; By grace receive my soul That it may live forever And let my body have A quiet resting place Within a Christian grave; And let it sleep in peace.
Libs: If Jesus was around you would call him "woke." The Bible is akshully liberal
Texas: Ok, lets have children read it
Libs: NO that'll make them fascist